Welcome to the Shaping Our Future: Toward a Pan Canadian E-learning Research Agenda online conference. In this post I wanted to overview why I think this is an important topic and our expectations for the conference.
For many years, I have been whining and sniveling about the lack of support and incentive for e-learning research in Canada. As an e-learning researcher, these protests may seem as only self serving, but I really think that Canada is missing out on and blowing our early lead in this increasingly important field. E-Learning has been recognized by many nations as being critical not only for existing formal education systems, but more importantly for lifelong learning, professional development, re-training of immigrants and creating opportunity those who are deprived of access to traditional forms of education and learning.
As our presenters (and especially Grainne Conole) will demonstrate during the conference most countries of the world (developed and developing) have national programs to support and encourage e-learning. Many countries also recognize the value in active research programs that help develop, evaluate, mash, deploy and more quickly and effectively understand the use of e-learning tools and techniques. Unfortunately, Canada has yet to recognize and support specific e-learning initiatives. This is not to say that there is no research or development work going on in Canada, but rather that researchers must compete with all the other disciplines for meager available funds. I am told that this year’s Section 18 of SSHRC standard grant funding (the one that includes education) had an 18% success rate for all applications. Likely very few of the successful funds were focused on e-learning.
In 2005 I hired Dr Tim Buell to create a literature review on large scale or national research agendas. I had intended to follow up on this by actually generating a research agenda through surveys of researchers, policy makers, administrators and learners. But after the paper came out, I got cold feet, thinking that the time wasn’t right and that maybe the activity should be postponed until we felt that it could lead to action on the resulting research agenda. I’m not convinced that the time is right, three years later. But George Siemens twisted my arm, and Sylvia Currie provide the SCOPE conference system, so here we are…..
I hope that the conference will help us all to understand
• What is a research agenda?
• Why we need a pan-Canadian e-learning research agenda in this area,
• what the components of a research agenda are,
• on the third week we will create that agenda on the SCOPE WIkI
• and perhaps the collaborative creation and dissemination of this document will be used by researchers, policy makers and teachers to galvanize and inspire all of us to more effectively use e-learning to improve the lives of all of us.
My thanks to all who have been working behind the scenes to organize and promote this event, to the speakers over the next two weeks and most importantly to you, the delegate for participating and adding your contribution to the event.
I’d be interested in reading your thoughts on the state of Canada’s (or the global) e-learning research agenda, and what you expect and hope to get from our conference.
Over…….
Terry
Terry,
I am currently doing my masters at an American university online. We use the ISTE Standards - International Society for Technology in Education along with state specific, Ontario, and international subject standards. I believe ISTE just had a big international conference in Jan 2008. I teach adult education, and I know that ISTE is planning a college-university addition to their standards. To my knowledge, no one in Canada is following, collaborating, or contributing to ISTE. I am right? wrong? If I am right, then I think Canada should get involved with ISTE and perhaps become a key player rather than re-invent the wheel.
Paula
I am currently doing my masters at an American university online. We use the ISTE Standards - International Society for Technology in Education along with state specific, Ontario, and international subject standards. I believe ISTE just had a big international conference in Jan 2008. I teach adult education, and I know that ISTE is planning a college-university addition to their standards. To my knowledge, no one in Canada is following, collaborating, or contributing to ISTE. I am right? wrong? If I am right, then I think Canada should get involved with ISTE and perhaps become a key player rather than re-invent the wheel.
Paula
I guess we need to get our frustrations out into the forum first before we move forward. I too am wondering why WE (Canadian higher education) are not more in the vanguard of e-research. We certainly have many people engaged in providing, teaching, organizing the delivery of online learning in all areas. I have been connected to the credit side of the university at the graduate and undergraduate levels and now I'm working in Continuing Studies in a cost recovery program with a substantial certificate that is online. But each new project is almost like re-inventing the wheel and there are few resources, standards models, or simply support networks to draw from.
I've come to this forum to find out whether I've been missing where it's all happening.
Katherine McManus
(SFU)
I've come to this forum to find out whether I've been missing where it's all happening.
Katherine McManus
(SFU)
Hi,
That was a great opening, Terry. You made me connect this with the last in person curriculum course I taught 04/08. Most of the students in this class are/were taking their masters in language and literacy. When we got to studying about the hidden curriculum, we extended our discussion to wiki genre and distance education curriculum. We joked that all this was an extension of the idea of the hidden curriculum. It might be described as the invisible curriculum. Unless you've been part of it, it is unlikely to be of importance.
I think that the more we include blended instruction in face-to-face courses, the more influence we have with the e-research agenda - making the invisible, visible through shared vision.
Karen
That was a great opening, Terry. You made me connect this with the last in person curriculum course I taught 04/08. Most of the students in this class are/were taking their masters in language and literacy. When we got to studying about the hidden curriculum, we extended our discussion to wiki genre and distance education curriculum. We joked that all this was an extension of the idea of the hidden curriculum. It might be described as the invisible curriculum. Unless you've been part of it, it is unlikely to be of importance.
I think that the more we include blended instruction in face-to-face courses, the more influence we have with the e-research agenda - making the invisible, visible through shared vision.
Karen
Terry,
I am surprised that there is "lack of support and incentive for e-learning research in Canada" . As a former Canadian resident (living in Israel for the past 30 years), I have been telling everyone how proud I am that Canadian schools are using e-learning in schools. From reading the literature on e-learning, I came across many research studies done by Canadian scholars. I was under the impression that Canada was leading in the field. However, I would like to see collaborative studies done globally. I get the feeling that many instructors (higher education or K-12) are not too keen on applying e-learning.
I am surprised that there is "lack of support and incentive for e-learning research in Canada" . As a former Canadian resident (living in Israel for the past 30 years), I have been telling everyone how proud I am that Canadian schools are using e-learning in schools. From reading the literature on e-learning, I came across many research studies done by Canadian scholars. I was under the impression that Canada was leading in the field. However, I would like to see collaborative studies done globally. I get the feeling that many instructors (higher education or K-12) are not too keen on applying e-learning.
Thanks, Terry, for providing some background information on the topics and issues for those of us new to the Canadian scene 
And to add to Nellie's query - what do we want to use this agenda for? Is one purpose to raise awareness of the volume of research going on by virtue of the dedication of individuals? & the number & range of such studies?
Are we then hoping to create a critical mass for some other purposes e.g. attracting dedicated funding for various key areas and/or areas of special need?
Certainly Canada is known internationally for eLearning, distance & online research, but better known for the range and number of projects and initiatives in different locations across the country.
I personally am hoping that this conference will help us to identify where our field is going in terms of key interest areas and key people in those areas, as well as areas of critical concern such as access and equity. We could then put together some collaborative initiatives that would have a much stronger voice and greater impact than any one or small groups of us could do otherwise.
Afterall, we do have the skills and tools at our fingertips to make these connections and create these nodes!
-Debra-
And to add to Nellie's query - what do we want to use this agenda for? Is one purpose to raise awareness of the volume of research going on by virtue of the dedication of individuals? & the number & range of such studies?
Are we then hoping to create a critical mass for some other purposes e.g. attracting dedicated funding for various key areas and/or areas of special need?
Certainly Canada is known internationally for eLearning, distance & online research, but better known for the range and number of projects and initiatives in different locations across the country.
I personally am hoping that this conference will help us to identify where our field is going in terms of key interest areas and key people in those areas, as well as areas of critical concern such as access and equity. We could then put together some collaborative initiatives that would have a much stronger voice and greater impact than any one or small groups of us could do otherwise.
Afterall, we do have the skills and tools at our fingertips to make these connections and create these nodes!
-Debra-
I am especially interested in the development of a Canadian e-learning research agenda. I live in Alaska. If you put together a prioritized list of topics and methods in Canada, we can build on it in Alaska without duplication.
For instance, there is a lot of talk about the key importance of interaction for online learners. But is it "presence" as a motivator or "instruction" from a professor that provides the key? What is the role of doubt as a motivator for student-centered discovery learning? Can that role be automated with virtual interlocutors?
In Alaska we have some faculty with quite stationary attitudes about success factors. I can get them to agree to accept designs based on research results easier than I can get them to agree to designs based on best practice.
Thanks for mounting this conference. I will be following the discussion closely.
Curt Madison
Director Center for Distance Education
University of Alaska Fairbanks
For instance, there is a lot of talk about the key importance of interaction for online learners. But is it "presence" as a motivator or "instruction" from a professor that provides the key? What is the role of doubt as a motivator for student-centered discovery learning? Can that role be automated with virtual interlocutors?
In Alaska we have some faculty with quite stationary attitudes about success factors. I can get them to agree to accept designs based on research results easier than I can get them to agree to designs based on best practice.
Thanks for mounting this conference. I will be following the discussion closely.
Curt Madison
Director Center for Distance Education
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Hi all,
As others have stated, thanks Terry for providing an overview/history on your document. After seeing Canada take an early launch out of the elearning gates, it is disheartening to see progress stalled for lack of vision nationally.
I'm a bit torn on the process here. It is a somewhat sad expression on national status if the conversation has to be advanced grassroots rather than through thoughtful policy (it appears our group has less financial resources than the federal government). Or maybe it's a commentary on the value of the growing educator network enabled by technology. Where bottle necks exist in traditional procedures - even in terms of policy - informal, distributed approaches can serve to advance the discussion.
When I first came across Terry's document, I had this sense of "yes, this is what's needed!". My interest was on the "Pan-Canadian" aspect of the document :) (now, as then, my research activities fall under the banner of the Learning Technologies Centre, not a traditional academic department). Unfortunately, after three years, Terry's document has received limited discussion. Hopefully this online conference can advance discussion and raise the profile of these important ideas. We're fortunate to have Terry volunteer his time and effort to contribute, guide, influence, and prod us as we move forward in the discussion.
Who is most likely to benefit form this conference? Obviously researchers, academics, and policy makers. The questions Terry posted are directed primarily to this group. To address our declining national leadership role in global learning/technology discussions, the question becomes one of finding the area where greatest impact is possible. As research eventually filters through all aspects of society (well, ok, maybe not elearning research :)), and it's very unlikely we can find a leverage point with more potential, a research agenda seems like a great place to start.
But, I think participants outside of direct research can benefit from participating.
First, the strengthening of nascent connections within the educational technology community (and, since it's my own home stomping grounds, I include edubloggers here as well as traditional academic roles) is important. I'm constantly surprised at the originality and strength of Canadian involvement edtech. The potential for blending dialogue between innovative work by early adopters (such as bloggers) and more structured academic activities (such as traditional research and scholarship) will afford substantial benefits to both camps.
Second, what happens with research is intended to guide (and be guided by) practice. I see no reason why we can't start to thin the walls between research and practitioner. Having both parties involved in this discussion is an important start.
Looking forward to the discussion over the next few weeks!!
George
As others have stated, thanks Terry for providing an overview/history on your document. After seeing Canada take an early launch out of the elearning gates, it is disheartening to see progress stalled for lack of vision nationally.
I'm a bit torn on the process here. It is a somewhat sad expression on national status if the conversation has to be advanced grassroots rather than through thoughtful policy (it appears our group has less financial resources than the federal government). Or maybe it's a commentary on the value of the growing educator network enabled by technology. Where bottle necks exist in traditional procedures - even in terms of policy - informal, distributed approaches can serve to advance the discussion.
When I first came across Terry's document, I had this sense of "yes, this is what's needed!". My interest was on the "Pan-Canadian" aspect of the document :) (now, as then, my research activities fall under the banner of the Learning Technologies Centre, not a traditional academic department). Unfortunately, after three years, Terry's document has received limited discussion. Hopefully this online conference can advance discussion and raise the profile of these important ideas. We're fortunate to have Terry volunteer his time and effort to contribute, guide, influence, and prod us as we move forward in the discussion.
Who is most likely to benefit form this conference? Obviously researchers, academics, and policy makers. The questions Terry posted are directed primarily to this group. To address our declining national leadership role in global learning/technology discussions, the question becomes one of finding the area where greatest impact is possible. As research eventually filters through all aspects of society (well, ok, maybe not elearning research :)), and it's very unlikely we can find a leverage point with more potential, a research agenda seems like a great place to start.
But, I think participants outside of direct research can benefit from participating.
First, the strengthening of nascent connections within the educational technology community (and, since it's my own home stomping grounds, I include edubloggers here as well as traditional academic roles) is important. I'm constantly surprised at the originality and strength of Canadian involvement edtech. The potential for blending dialogue between innovative work by early adopters (such as bloggers) and more structured academic activities (such as traditional research and scholarship) will afford substantial benefits to both camps.
Second, what happens with research is intended to guide (and be guided by) practice. I see no reason why we can't start to thin the walls between research and practitioner. Having both parties involved in this discussion is an important start.
Looking forward to the discussion over the next few weeks!!
George
Hi everyone
I was led to participate in this conference and discussion through following George's blog - which I have always found to be great value -thanks George :)
It is amazing that Canada does not have a National framework in place to support elearning. I am based in Australia where we have the Australian Flexible Learning Framework which over the last 7 years or so has provided support through funding of product, projects, research, development of e-standards for training, networking and professional development across Australia. http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/flx/go
It is a credit to the Canadians out there researching, implementing and embedding elearning into teaching and learning practice that you have done this without a national strategy...and that you are working to change this.
I look forward to the discussion over the next few weeks.
Jac
Jacqueline Bates
Manager New Learning Technologies
TAFE NSW Riverina Institute
Australia
Jacqueline,
I am happy to learn that Australia and perhaps other countries are able and willing to provide "support through funding of product, projects, research, development of e-standards for training, networking and professional development". However, I would like to see global sharing and collaboration. Yes, there are a few collaborators such as George Siemens (clapping) who are sharing information and knowledge (Knowing Knowledge), but not enough. I am a doctoral student researching blended learning and instructor use of technology at the University of Phoenix online. However, I have encountered brick walls in my efforts to learn about the Israeli system of e-learning in higher education. Many instructors are not interested in sharing; let alone collaborating. I agree with Siemens (2006) that educational systems look pretty much the same as they did in the past. There is a need for change and perhaps this is the place.
Siemens, G (2006). Knowing knowledge. A Creative Commons licensed version available online at www.knowingknowledge.com (ISBN 978-1-4303-0230-8).
I am happy to learn that Australia and perhaps other countries are able and willing to provide "support through funding of product, projects, research, development of e-standards for training, networking and professional development". However, I would like to see global sharing and collaboration. Yes, there are a few collaborators such as George Siemens (clapping) who are sharing information and knowledge (Knowing Knowledge), but not enough. I am a doctoral student researching blended learning and instructor use of technology at the University of Phoenix online. However, I have encountered brick walls in my efforts to learn about the Israeli system of e-learning in higher education. Many instructors are not interested in sharing; let alone collaborating. I agree with Siemens (2006) that educational systems look pretty much the same as they did in the past. There is a need for change and perhaps this is the place.
Siemens, G (2006). Knowing knowledge. A Creative Commons licensed version available online at www.knowingknowledge.com (ISBN 978-1-4303-0230-8).
Hi Nellie
I was in Phoenix a year or so ago visiting the Maricopa Community Colleges there and the universities investigating and sharing information about new learning technologies. Our Institute has had a staff exchange program with Maricopa Colleges for a number of years that has been a great tool in breaking down a brick or two :)
The link I provided to the Australian Flexible Learning Framework site has OPEN access to research, resources, networks and in fact the focus of the Australian Framework has been about going beyond borders and setting up environments to collaborate and share - nationally and internationally.
I am finding Second Life and immersive environments a great space for global sharing and collaboration - there are some fantastic very sharing educators in that space.
Let me know if you want some links to people in Australia that might be helpful in your research - I know some fantastic practitioners who would be more than happy to talk with you.
Jac
Hi Jac,
I can sense your enthusiasm to sharing and collaborating. Yes, I would like to discuss my research with other practitioners. Please feel free to pass my email or email me the names.
Thank you.
Nellie
I can sense your enthusiasm to sharing and collaborating. Yes, I would like to discuss my research with other practitioners. Please feel free to pass my email or email me the names.
Thank you.
Nellie
I am very interested to see how this will go. From the comments and intros so far I know I can learn a lot from the eminent thinkers assembled.
I am grinding away on a doctoral program, participating in a project titled Critical Pedagogy in Second Life: Recreating Social Movements in Immersive Environments. We are using Open Learn and Second Life, the philosophical underpinnings derived from the writings of Freire and Illich. (careful with those apple carts, sir 
)
My dissertation research orientation is qualitative and action-oriented, using Grounded Theory method (Glaser and Strauss, leaning towards Glaser). I concur with those who figure that the major impediment to the adoption of technology in support of learning is cultural. Descriptive stats will tell us ‘what’ but we also need to figure out ‘why’. We need to be able to generate testable theories and then test them. Things are moving fast so we need new research practices that are quick, adaptable, credible and, most of all, useful.
My recent experiences with the Canadian e-learning agenda are mixed. On the bright side there is the MB Education, Citizenship and Youth initiative "Literacy with ICT Across the Curriculum" which has the stated goal of infusing ICT through out the K-12 curriculum. On the other hand, Argyris's observations about espoused theory and theory-in-use seem to be very well founded.
Person watch your
Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts
I want to first state that I am sympathetic with Terry's plaint. I have heard him over these last few years making the case for research in e-learning in Canada. And I agree that there is a case to be made. But I would like to caution that it's not an obvious case, and that the result even of a successful petition is not necessarily what we might envision.
Here in New Brunswick, I made a case at the provincial level for the sort of program Terry envisions nationally - a Canadian JISC or EdNA, for example. http://www.downes.ca/presentation/180 The proposal was well-received and the audience - members of the e-learning industry here in New Brunswick, including members of the Canadian military engaged in overseas training - was receptive.
But it's not clear that the sort of presentation I made would be accepted as a national proposal.
First, for the benefit of our international audience, I should point out that Canada is a confederation of ten provinces and three territories. These provinces share power with the federal government. In the Canadian constitution, education at all levels is a provincial responsibility. This has not prevented the federal government from making substantial investments in the field over the years, through established programs financing, through Council grants, and through project funding. But there is the widespread belief in Canada that there should not be a federal *coordination* of education in Canada, which would include e-learning research.
Which leads to my second point. The provincial ministers of education, when they got together under the auspices of CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada - http://www.cmec.ca/ ) did launch a research program, funded to the tune of some $86 million, if I recall correctly. This resulted in the creation of the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL - http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl ) and this body *did* produce a research agenda.
It is not exactly what I would call a forward-looking agenda. Without having conducted a systematic review, I am hesitant to make specific criticisms, but much of the work seems to me to be less relevant than I would like and in some cases - such as the 'learning profiles of famous Canadians' series, outright frivolous. I don't agree with all of the presumptions underlying the development of the research agenda, and have openly questioned these presumptions in various forums.
CCL has launched a "21st Century L:earning Agenda" ( http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/AboutCCL/21stCentury?Language=EN ) which looks a lot like the 'school 2.0' stuff coming out of the U.S. and which has toiled in relative obscurity here in Canada. Their website, Change Learning ( http://www.changelearning.ca/ ) focuses essentially on the work of John Abbott. The site looks like an average edublog, is about as informed, and even has 'blogs', though an apparent absence of RSS feeds. If you were to join the discussion, started a half year ago, your post would be post number 6. ( http://www.changelearning.ca/forum )
There is another major research path in Canada, one that has historically been dominated by a small group of people. It begins in the 1990s, with the Virtual-U project (TeleLearning NCE) based (mostly) at Simon Fraser University and led by Linda Harasim and other notables. ( http://wildcat.iat.sfu.ca/theme5/Harasim1.html ) Given the results of the project, which spent $14 million over 4 years, the criticisms in the student press seem prescient. ( http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/95-2/issue11/mat-opin.html ) There's more on Virtual-U here: ( http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1161152 )
This was followed by the unlamented EduSource project. ( http://www.edusource.ca/ )It was in a certain sense a carry-over from Virtual-. Funded by CANARIE, it spend something like $6 million to produce a network of learning object repositories in Canada. Though the website is still extant, the federation (and associated initiatives, like GLOBE (http://www.globe-info.net), limps along). This in turn was followed by LORNet ( http://www.lornet.org/ ), involving many of the same people, which is also a network of learning object repositories. The research themes combine to produce the " TeleLearning Operation System -TELOS."
This is a research program. One could argue that it is not a very good research program, in that it consists of attempting to do pretty much the same thing over and over, and inasmuch as it is mainly focused on replicating the university network online. One could argue that it's not enough money - though given what we've gotten for the tens of millions already spent, one could argue that more spending would be good money after bad.
You see - from my perspective, the problem is only *partially* that we haven't invested enough in e-learning http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/09/alliant-sale.htmlresearch in Canada. The problem is also that our investments have been badly managed, and have gone to support projects that should not have been supported, or which though well-intentioned turned out to be less well managed. And moreover - since these projects continue to be a going concern - the best evidence is that the allocation of more money would end up in the hands of the same people, doing the same thing. I mean, after all, can we *really* imagine that the money wouldn't be absorbed by the CCL people and the LORNet people?
And all of *that* said, it is worth noting that the best research in Canada has taken place outside that sphere of well-funded influence. Projects like the Multiple Academic User Domain (MAUD - http://www.downes.ca/post/252 ) which was already doing what Virtual-U was funded to do when it was funded. Projects like WebCT, which came to define an industry. Projects like Alberta SuperNet ( http://www.education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/supernet.aspx ). Like Canada SchoolNet ( http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/data/canadas_schoolnet_network ). Like BC Campus. ( http://www.bccampus.ca/site3.aspx ) Like the Public Knowledge Project. ( http://pkp.sfu.ca/ ) And - dare I say - the loose collaboration that is the e-learning edublogging connectivist community in Canada.
My perspective is, though we have been very innovative in Canada, we have been inept at *managing* that innovation. And that this is precisely because we seem to always feel that it must *be* managed, that it must be coordinated, that we must align to a common 'research direction' because we're so small, that we must create the 'CanadArm' of global e-learning by focusing on our niche excellence (which we can then sell to the U.S. - or at least try. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/09/alliant-sale.html )
So when someone says to me, "we need a research agenda," I take pause. Because, my first question is something along the lines of: "What are the odds that a coordinated research program would in any resemble the work that I am doing?" And when I answer that question ("zero") my concern becomes that a coordinated research program would siphon what few resources make it my way as part of Canada's only *actual* e-learning research program (at the NRC http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/r-d/iia-aii_e.html ) and redirect them to the CCLs and the LORNets of the world.
To be honest, I'm not interested in a research program or a research agenda. I have no real faith that such coordinated efforts at research, particularly in an undefined field such as e-learning, work.
My preference would be to see a network of supports put into place for an *uncoordinated* research effort. I would like to see the Canadian e-learning community provided with free (and easy to use) web spaces, free discussion areas, free applications and free online services. I would like to see support for a news exchange system - an aggregator of Canadian research blogs. I would like to see Canadian researchers publish in open journals and newsletters available to all educators. I'd like to see support for open content and open archiving - a genuinely free and open repository of learning (and other) resources.
Most of all, I'd like research in Canada to stop trying to create 'commercial applications' or 'commercial networks' - even when we succeed at this, we just end up selling them to the U.S. anyways. We need to think about the idea of 'research as infrastructure' - we need to conduct research by actually providing services to people, instead of conducting study after useless study of 14 graduate students and their online course.
Is this likely to happen? No.
So, while I am sympathetic with Terry Anderson's proposal, and would like to see something positive result, I am cautious and sceptical in that support.
Here in New Brunswick, I made a case at the provincial level for the sort of program Terry envisions nationally - a Canadian JISC or EdNA, for example. http://www.downes.ca/presentation/180 The proposal was well-received and the audience - members of the e-learning industry here in New Brunswick, including members of the Canadian military engaged in overseas training - was receptive.
But it's not clear that the sort of presentation I made would be accepted as a national proposal.
First, for the benefit of our international audience, I should point out that Canada is a confederation of ten provinces and three territories. These provinces share power with the federal government. In the Canadian constitution, education at all levels is a provincial responsibility. This has not prevented the federal government from making substantial investments in the field over the years, through established programs financing, through Council grants, and through project funding. But there is the widespread belief in Canada that there should not be a federal *coordination* of education in Canada, which would include e-learning research.
Which leads to my second point. The provincial ministers of education, when they got together under the auspices of CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada - http://www.cmec.ca/ ) did launch a research program, funded to the tune of some $86 million, if I recall correctly. This resulted in the creation of the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL - http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl ) and this body *did* produce a research agenda.
It is not exactly what I would call a forward-looking agenda. Without having conducted a systematic review, I am hesitant to make specific criticisms, but much of the work seems to me to be less relevant than I would like and in some cases - such as the 'learning profiles of famous Canadians' series, outright frivolous. I don't agree with all of the presumptions underlying the development of the research agenda, and have openly questioned these presumptions in various forums.
CCL has launched a "21st Century L:earning Agenda" ( http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/AboutCCL/21stCentury?Language=EN ) which looks a lot like the 'school 2.0' stuff coming out of the U.S. and which has toiled in relative obscurity here in Canada. Their website, Change Learning ( http://www.changelearning.ca/ ) focuses essentially on the work of John Abbott. The site looks like an average edublog, is about as informed, and even has 'blogs', though an apparent absence of RSS feeds. If you were to join the discussion, started a half year ago, your post would be post number 6. ( http://www.changelearning.ca/forum )
There is another major research path in Canada, one that has historically been dominated by a small group of people. It begins in the 1990s, with the Virtual-U project (TeleLearning NCE) based (mostly) at Simon Fraser University and led by Linda Harasim and other notables. ( http://wildcat.iat.sfu.ca/theme5/Harasim1.html ) Given the results of the project, which spent $14 million over 4 years, the criticisms in the student press seem prescient. ( http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/95-2/issue11/mat-opin.html ) There's more on Virtual-U here: ( http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1161152 )
This was followed by the unlamented EduSource project. ( http://www.edusource.ca/ )It was in a certain sense a carry-over from Virtual-. Funded by CANARIE, it spend something like $6 million to produce a network of learning object repositories in Canada. Though the website is still extant, the federation (and associated initiatives, like GLOBE (http://www.globe-info.net), limps along). This in turn was followed by LORNet ( http://www.lornet.org/ ), involving many of the same people, which is also a network of learning object repositories. The research themes combine to produce the " TeleLearning Operation System -TELOS."
This is a research program. One could argue that it is not a very good research program, in that it consists of attempting to do pretty much the same thing over and over, and inasmuch as it is mainly focused on replicating the university network online. One could argue that it's not enough money - though given what we've gotten for the tens of millions already spent, one could argue that more spending would be good money after bad.
You see - from my perspective, the problem is only *partially* that we haven't invested enough in e-learning http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/09/alliant-sale.htmlresearch in Canada. The problem is also that our investments have been badly managed, and have gone to support projects that should not have been supported, or which though well-intentioned turned out to be less well managed. And moreover - since these projects continue to be a going concern - the best evidence is that the allocation of more money would end up in the hands of the same people, doing the same thing. I mean, after all, can we *really* imagine that the money wouldn't be absorbed by the CCL people and the LORNet people?
And all of *that* said, it is worth noting that the best research in Canada has taken place outside that sphere of well-funded influence. Projects like the Multiple Academic User Domain (MAUD - http://www.downes.ca/post/252 ) which was already doing what Virtual-U was funded to do when it was funded. Projects like WebCT, which came to define an industry. Projects like Alberta SuperNet ( http://www.education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/supernet.aspx ). Like Canada SchoolNet ( http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/data/canadas_schoolnet_network ). Like BC Campus. ( http://www.bccampus.ca/site3.aspx ) Like the Public Knowledge Project. ( http://pkp.sfu.ca/ ) And - dare I say - the loose collaboration that is the e-learning edublogging connectivist community in Canada.
My perspective is, though we have been very innovative in Canada, we have been inept at *managing* that innovation. And that this is precisely because we seem to always feel that it must *be* managed, that it must be coordinated, that we must align to a common 'research direction' because we're so small, that we must create the 'CanadArm' of global e-learning by focusing on our niche excellence (which we can then sell to the U.S. - or at least try. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/09/alliant-sale.html )
So when someone says to me, "we need a research agenda," I take pause. Because, my first question is something along the lines of: "What are the odds that a coordinated research program would in any resemble the work that I am doing?" And when I answer that question ("zero") my concern becomes that a coordinated research program would siphon what few resources make it my way as part of Canada's only *actual* e-learning research program (at the NRC http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/r-d/iia-aii_e.html ) and redirect them to the CCLs and the LORNets of the world.
To be honest, I'm not interested in a research program or a research agenda. I have no real faith that such coordinated efforts at research, particularly in an undefined field such as e-learning, work.
My preference would be to see a network of supports put into place for an *uncoordinated* research effort. I would like to see the Canadian e-learning community provided with free (and easy to use) web spaces, free discussion areas, free applications and free online services. I would like to see support for a news exchange system - an aggregator of Canadian research blogs. I would like to see Canadian researchers publish in open journals and newsletters available to all educators. I'd like to see support for open content and open archiving - a genuinely free and open repository of learning (and other) resources.
Most of all, I'd like research in Canada to stop trying to create 'commercial applications' or 'commercial networks' - even when we succeed at this, we just end up selling them to the U.S. anyways. We need to think about the idea of 'research as infrastructure' - we need to conduct research by actually providing services to people, instead of conducting study after useless study of 14 graduate students and their online course.
Is this likely to happen? No.
So, while I am sympathetic with Terry Anderson's proposal, and would like to see something positive result, I am cautious and sceptical in that support.
I agree with most of Stephen's comments. My only issue is that we place as much emphasis on pedagogical research (theory and practice) as we do infrastructure. A website that attempts to document one line of research in this area is the Community of Inquiry website (http://communitiesofinquiry.com/). A small international group is collaborating on this topic.
RG
RG
Hello everyone
It seems I may be the lone K-12 voice in this discussion - at least this early in the discussion! I have been working with online course development in Ontario since 1999, working first with the Independent Learning Centre, then Ontario Knowledge Network which evolved into eLearning Ontario.
My involvement with standards in Canada stem from discussions with Dr Kathryn Baker as a result of a conference in Ontario in 2001. In Ontario, the eLearning Ontario branch of the Provincial Ministry of Education has developed standards for writing and delivering eLearning courses for 9-12 through the work of the Ontario Curriculum Clearing House research.
I am very interested in the role educator in K-12 can play in having the right set of standards in our system to support the needs of higher education.
Sue Fried
Regional eLearning Contact
Peel District School Board
Sue,
You aren't the only K-12 voice. The sole reason I signed up for this conference was to make sure that we had a K-12 focus included.
I've been researching K-12 online learning/virtual schooling for much of this decade, with a large focus on Newfoundland and Labrador. In the past few months, I've been trying to secure $20,000 to conduct a survey of K-12 online learning policies and activities across Canada (similar to the Watson Keeping Pace in Online Learning documents produced each year - see http://www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf ). But I have yet to secure any funding. In the US, John is able to get about $75,000 a year from various virtual schools, vendors and foundations to conduct this American survey since 2003.
The funny thing from the K-12 perspective is that virtual schooling has been happening in Canada for two years more than it has in the United States. However, since we don't have the need to prove effectiveness from a standard testing point - because we haven't gone test/accountability crazy yet - virtual schools do not need to pay for external evaluations just about every year or two. Also, since there is very little funding for educational research here (as compared to the US), there hasn't been calls like the NCREL one from 2005 to fund research into K-12 online learning. So, there is very little written about virtual schooling in Canada, and lots about it in the United States - even though we do almost as much or more of it than they do.
MKB
You aren't the only K-12 voice. The sole reason I signed up for this conference was to make sure that we had a K-12 focus included.
I've been researching K-12 online learning/virtual schooling for much of this decade, with a large focus on Newfoundland and Labrador. In the past few months, I've been trying to secure $20,000 to conduct a survey of K-12 online learning policies and activities across Canada (similar to the Watson Keeping Pace in Online Learning documents produced each year - see http://www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf ). But I have yet to secure any funding. In the US, John is able to get about $75,000 a year from various virtual schools, vendors and foundations to conduct this American survey since 2003.
The funny thing from the K-12 perspective is that virtual schooling has been happening in Canada for two years more than it has in the United States. However, since we don't have the need to prove effectiveness from a standard testing point - because we haven't gone test/accountability crazy yet - virtual schools do not need to pay for external evaluations just about every year or two. Also, since there is very little funding for educational research here (as compared to the US), there hasn't been calls like the NCREL one from 2005 to fund research into K-12 online learning. So, there is very little written about virtual schooling in Canada, and lots about it in the United States - even though we do almost as much or more of it than they do.
MKB
It is inspiring to see the level of e-learning activity and expertise that Canada has despite the absence of a national e-learning research agenda. The possibility of galvanizing a grassroots collective (including international participants) through this conference forum to create a Pan-Canadian research agenda is actually quite wonderful. I think we should consider it “freeing” to shape our e-learning future without the requirement to force fit it to a particular ministry’s mandate. With the involvement of our international colleagues we may even find that what emerges is a collaborative international e-learning research agenda rather than a national one.
My own interest in this is more around “action research” or “applied research”. A vast volume of e-learning research is being done around the world. What we need is not necessarily more research, the global e-learning research pipe is already gushing out results. What is needed is an analysis and sifting through of the findings with an eye to converting them into practice.
It is true that historically at a national level Canada’s investment in e-learning has largely been in infrastructure and the technology aspect of e-learning – CANARIE, EduSource, and Virtual-U being good examples. Broadband infrastructure and e-learning applications now proliferate. I’m participating in a working group looking to create a “technology road map” for Canada’s new media industry. This group includes representation from digital film and animation, mobile content, interactive entertainment, e-learning, and interactive design and web 2.0. I’m excited by the potential that integration and use of these other technology sectors has for e-learning and suggest that a breaking down of the silos between them and research support for collaboration across sectors holds great promise.
That said I hope this forum moves beyond a focus on technology to a heightened attention on the e-learning teaching and learning process and social experience. The new frontier calls out for research and innovation around the design, development, pedagogy, and evaluation aspects of e-learning. Education is social so lets delve into the social experience of teaching and learning online and focus on how to optimize that experience.
Unlike Stephen Downes lament against a managed coordinated approach to e-learning I think we can achieve that and see this forum as an example of striving to combine all of our voices into a collective e-learning research agenda that goes well beyond the individual voices of Canada’s exemplary edubloggers.
Looking forward to a stimulating and provocative forum with you all.
Paul Stacey
My own interest in this is more around “action research” or “applied research”. A vast volume of e-learning research is being done around the world. What we need is not necessarily more research, the global e-learning research pipe is already gushing out results. What is needed is an analysis and sifting through of the findings with an eye to converting them into practice.
It is true that historically at a national level Canada’s investment in e-learning has largely been in infrastructure and the technology aspect of e-learning – CANARIE, EduSource, and Virtual-U being good examples. Broadband infrastructure and e-learning applications now proliferate. I’m participating in a working group looking to create a “technology road map” for Canada’s new media industry. This group includes representation from digital film and animation, mobile content, interactive entertainment, e-learning, and interactive design and web 2.0. I’m excited by the potential that integration and use of these other technology sectors has for e-learning and suggest that a breaking down of the silos between them and research support for collaboration across sectors holds great promise.
That said I hope this forum moves beyond a focus on technology to a heightened attention on the e-learning teaching and learning process and social experience. The new frontier calls out for research and innovation around the design, development, pedagogy, and evaluation aspects of e-learning. Education is social so lets delve into the social experience of teaching and learning online and focus on how to optimize that experience.
Unlike Stephen Downes lament against a managed coordinated approach to e-learning I think we can achieve that and see this forum as an example of striving to combine all of our voices into a collective e-learning research agenda that goes well beyond the individual voices of Canada’s exemplary edubloggers.
Looking forward to a stimulating and provocative forum with you all.
Paul Stacey
Hello all
I wanted to make sure that Sue didn’t feel too lonely in this discussion which has already produced some lively food for thought. I too have been involved in using the online environment for education for over a decade and have recently completed a PhD through Deakin University thanks to the support of the team there with special mention to Dr. Elizabeth Stacey. My research has been focused on the use of online communities of practice for professional development in the K-12 sector. At the moment I am part of a team supported by eLearning Ontario, Ministry of Education, (along with Sue Fried and four others) which is focused on facilitating the Ministry elearning strategy across the six regions of the province of Ontario.
As the use of online learning in the K-12 sector becomes more ubiquitous the need to disseminate emergent trends and strategies is essential to the K-12 community for obvious reasons. The transition of students from K-12 into higher education is of major interest given the hybrid and/or fully online nature of many courses at that level. While there are international working groups examining these issues (see the International Federation for Information Processing - http://cidt.oum.edu.my/lyict/ ) a comparable focus here would be of interest.
This is a wonderful opportunity to share and I am looking forward to the discussions.
Regards
Suzanne Riverin
Paul Stacey said:
"Unlike Stephen Downes lament against a managed coordinated approach to e-learning I think we can achieve that and see this forum as an example of striving to combine all of our voices into a collective e-learning research agenda that goes well beyond the individual voices of Canada’s exemplary edubloggers."
I agree with Paul's sentiment pointing to the need of collaboration, but want to suggest that Stephen made a very strong point by outlining how the strength of a Canadian contribution to elearning in the past was driven by "unmanaged" initiatives, in fact managing e-learning initiatives across the Canadian Federation appear to be the kiss of death. I don't want to get into the details of which initiatives are successful and which one are not, but point out that a collaboration based on affinity or complementarity is probably more robust than any initiative forced under one umbrella for purposes of labeling/commercializing.
The principles of we support in our renewed understanding of learning
"Unlike Stephen Downes lament against a managed coordinated approach to e-learning I think we can achieve that and see this forum as an example of striving to combine all of our voices into a collective e-learning research agenda that goes well beyond the individual voices of Canada’s exemplary edubloggers."
I agree with Paul's sentiment pointing to the need of collaboration, but want to suggest that Stephen made a very strong point by outlining how the strength of a Canadian contribution to elearning in the past was driven by "unmanaged" initiatives, in fact managing e-learning initiatives across the Canadian Federation appear to be the kiss of death. I don't want to get into the details of which initiatives are successful and which one are not, but point out that a collaboration based on affinity or complementarity is probably more robust than any initiative forced under one umbrella for purposes of labeling/commercializing.
The principles of we support in our renewed understanding of learning
- Co-creation
- Expression of self in participation
- Multimodal interaction
- Affinity-based self-organization
- Distributed cognition
Yes, I think I took Stephen's point that the strength of some initiatives has come from self-organized communities with the attributes you have outlined, Uli. I agree completely.
I took from Paul's note that some degree of intentionality is good as an organizing principle, but it does not have to be top-down in shape, nor feature a continuing cast of central players as Stephen has noted.
This is a great airing for the Canadian federation. There are lots of warts, and it would be a good thing not to replicate suspect strategies of the past in our future endeavors.
I like it.
d.
I took from Paul's note that some degree of intentionality is good as an organizing principle, but it does not have to be top-down in shape, nor feature a continuing cast of central players as Stephen has noted.
This is a great airing for the Canadian federation. There are lots of warts, and it would be a good thing not to replicate suspect strategies of the past in our future endeavors.
I like it.
d.
I understand the need for a national agenda, but I think education and specifically e-learning should go beyond borders. I would like to see instructors collaborating worldwide to make e-learning free and available. I agree with Paul Stacey on the need for applied research on how to optimize the social experience of instruction and learning. I believe consideration should be given to international participatory research projects and to professional development courses in K-12 and higher education.
Thanks to all for their introduction, comments and questions. Debra Hoven asked what we intend to do with the proposed “research agenda” to which I would say that it should have multiple uses. First and probably most important is as a conscious raising and wisdom sharing effort among researchers, policy makers, educators and learners, I’ve experienced the value of this already through the review of the comments posted. Secondly, I hope our collaborative efforts will yield better plans and more compelling cases for e-learning research and development support. And finally I think the sharing of interest and perspective will help us create the community necessary for successful Pan-Canadian efforts.
Thanks to Stephen Downes for is extensive post on the past. Our track record is not sterling, but that alone is not sufficient reason to cease trying. As Ulruch Rauch noted we need new approaches, new ways to collaborate and new ways to manage our collective efforts. To continue with approaches that didn’t work in the past is a sure fire recipe for failure. Dave Porter and Paul Stacey also note that our efforts demand some type of coordination. We need a “thousand flowers blooming” but they don’t need to be all the same color, nor planted in the same pots. Nonetheless, they need to share enough genetic similarity to thrive in the same country, need to be able to both compete with and complement each other and together create a rich garden with a pleasing, functional and mutually sustaining eco-structure.
I am envisioning a research agenda that goes far beyond a few teams of academics isolated in University. It needs to engage teachers, administrators full time and action researchers, learners, employers and parents. I attended the handheld conference in London last October and was very impressed with the groups of K12 teachers presenting hard empirical research results that they had generated with initiatives in (and beyond) their own classrooms. Often these projects were partnerships with University researchers (as in many design experiments) but some were action research projects that were designed and initiated by teachers themselves, others were R&D projects by mobile industry types and some were driven from the Universities.
Stephen mentioned the success of a few Canadian projects and noted WebCT. As I recall Murry Golberg’s first version (remember when WebCT was free!!) was developed through funding from a BC Innovation fund. I certainly remember the “good old days” when Alberta had a Learning Enrichment Fund. All of these types of grassroots initiative funding seems to have dried up, with the very small exception of the privately funded Inukshuk fund. In its place is massive provincial and national funding for mostly science and technology funding for ‘big science’. For example, the new $120 million National Nanotechnology Centre at the University of Alberta has 220 employees and 15 Canada Research Chairs. Not that I have anything against nano technology (well, besides the macro funding, on a tiny focus ) but surely innovation in education has at least as much strategic value to Canada as does nano-technology- yet we spend much more on this one technology than we do on educational research in total.
In my opening keynote on Monday, I’ll continue this argument and invite real time discussion and a continuation of the great discourse already begun. Stephen also noted the work of CCL, so be sure to attend John Biss's presentation on May 20 to hear about the latest CCL activities.
Terry
PS Don’t forget to enjoy the weekend!
Terry, In your initial post you mention how a call for funds toward a research agenda could be seen as self-serving. My question is: If this agenda is not self-serving, who will it serve?
To uncover my meaning I'll give an example of Canadian learning. We're far enough away from November that this example is less volatile, but every November kids in schools across Canada are given poppies and reminded that their rights and freedoms were won by brave men and women in uniform. Who does this learning outcome serve? Does it serve Native Canadians? Does it serve workers? Does it serve women? How about gays and lesbians? If children in schools across Canada were to learn how rights and freedom have historically been secured and defended, an empowering lesson, who would that serve?
Classroom learning is not neutral. And elearning is still the reproduction of knowledge, which is never neutral. So my question again is: Who will this agenda serve?
P.S. I'm heading out now to coach my 4 year old daughter's soccer team. That's how I enjoy the weekend.
To uncover my meaning I'll give an example of Canadian learning. We're far enough away from November that this example is less volatile, but every November kids in schools across Canada are given poppies and reminded that their rights and freedoms were won by brave men and women in uniform. Who does this learning outcome serve? Does it serve Native Canadians? Does it serve workers? Does it serve women? How about gays and lesbians? If children in schools across Canada were to learn how rights and freedom have historically been secured and defended, an empowering lesson, who would that serve?
Classroom learning is not neutral. And elearning is still the reproduction of knowledge, which is never neutral. So my question again is: Who will this agenda serve?
P.S. I'm heading out now to coach my 4 year old daughter's soccer team. That's how I enjoy the weekend.
Rodger asks whom a pan Canadian e-learning research agenda would serve.
As I noted, it certainly will serve me, as I am full time e-learning researcher, but I think the benefits extend far beyond that. First of course is the increasing use of e-learning in both F2F and distance modes of formal education - at all levels including K12!. But more importantly is the expanding use for informal learning - who hasn't solved learning problems through Wikipedia, Google and a zillion other special purpose sites. These resources can and are used by mainstream and minority groups, Native Canadians, women, workers, gays, lesbians and all other groups with a few exceptions amongst religious groups who don't support use of new technologies. All of these are users, but given the relative newness of the media, it is exceedingly unlikely that we are using the technologies and the social practices we evolve to utilize them at optimal levels - thus the need for research.
I'm note sure what Rodger is getting at when he argues " elearning is still the reproduction of knowledge" I think of elearning as having potential and currently demonstrating capacity to go far beyond reproduction to creation of knowledge. This knowledge is of course not neutral as Rodger notes and I argued in a 2001 paper on the hidden curriculum in distance education
Elearning and associated technologies are also used by terrorist groups, porn merchants, gun lobbyists, religious fanatics and host of other unsavory folks,
but that is hardly reason for us not to use these powerful tools effectively for learning and teaching.
Terry
As I noted, it certainly will serve me, as I am full time e-learning researcher, but I think the benefits extend far beyond that. First of course is the increasing use of e-learning in both F2F and distance modes of formal education - at all levels including K12!. But more importantly is the expanding use for informal learning - who hasn't solved learning problems through Wikipedia, Google and a zillion other special purpose sites. These resources can and are used by mainstream and minority groups, Native Canadians, women, workers, gays, lesbians and all other groups with a few exceptions amongst religious groups who don't support use of new technologies. All of these are users, but given the relative newness of the media, it is exceedingly unlikely that we are using the technologies and the social practices we evolve to utilize them at optimal levels - thus the need for research.
I'm note sure what Rodger is getting at when he argues " elearning is still the reproduction of knowledge" I think of elearning as having potential and currently demonstrating capacity to go far beyond reproduction to creation of knowledge. This knowledge is of course not neutral as Rodger notes and I argued in a 2001 paper on the hidden curriculum in distance education
Elearning and associated technologies are also used by terrorist groups, porn merchants, gun lobbyists, religious fanatics and host of other unsavory folks,
but that is hardly reason for us not to use these powerful tools effectively for learning and teaching.
Terry
The way this conference is being kicked off is fantastic. I really appreciate all the great dialog even before the opening keynote.
What really stands out for me from this discussion are two points;
First, the lack of clarity to a national agenda. I look back to when I presented at an ICT4D conference a few years back. Admittedly it was a small and inaugural conference, but it was well represented. I was the only Canadian, and when asked questions about our national organizations in this area I found myself struggling to answer. Even though I had spent some time in my M Ed IT graduate studies, nothing easily came to mind. So I believe the topic of this conference is a very good thing.
Second, with all the monies that seem to be made available. (and in reading these posts it seems to be into the millions). Why don't we have a national technology infrastructure where we can put all this great research into practice. Why don't we have a dedicated national shared service based on open source software / infrastructure to allow every Canadian a place to learn, create their own "ePortfolios", collaborate, co-create, blog, wiki, etc.? I believe this would be as simple as having a reasonable server farm with some good bandwidth and a couple of full time administrators [something equivalent to (only smaller than) Amazons S3 or EC2 or Googles App Engine]. This would put Canada back in front when it came to eLearning 2.0 (or whatever you want to call it). Or why hasn't one of the Universities created such an infrastructure? And any University who shares and utilizes such an infrastructure would toss in a few $$ to keep it cared for and fed (this certainly would be cheaper than maintaining the infrastructure themselves). This could also go along way toward recognizing any national information privacy concerns. Nothing worse than having students blog on free servers hosted in the US in my mind... I certainly hope this conference can also get into the implementation side of all the great edu-research we've got going!!!
Cheers, Peter
What really stands out for me from this discussion are two points;
First, the lack of clarity to a national agenda. I look back to when I presented at an ICT4D conference a few years back. Admittedly it was a small and inaugural conference, but it was well represented. I was the only Canadian, and when asked questions about our national organizations in this area I found myself struggling to answer. Even though I had spent some time in my M Ed IT graduate studies, nothing easily came to mind. So I believe the topic of this conference is a very good thing.
Second, with all the monies that seem to be made available. (and in reading these posts it seems to be into the millions). Why don't we have a national technology infrastructure where we can put all this great research into practice. Why don't we have a dedicated national shared service based on open source software / infrastructure to allow every Canadian a place to learn, create their own "ePortfolios", collaborate, co-create, blog, wiki, etc.? I believe this would be as simple as having a reasonable server farm with some good bandwidth and a couple of full time administrators [something equivalent to (only smaller than) Amazons S3 or EC2 or Googles App Engine]. This would put Canada back in front when it came to eLearning 2.0 (or whatever you want to call it). Or why hasn't one of the Universities created such an infrastructure? And any University who shares and utilizes such an infrastructure would toss in a few $$ to keep it cared for and fed (this certainly would be cheaper than maintaining the infrastructure themselves). This could also go along way toward recognizing any national information privacy concerns. Nothing worse than having students blog on free servers hosted in the US in my mind... I certainly hope this conference can also get into the implementation side of all the great edu-research we've got going!!!
Cheers, Peter
I am critical of e-learning. This doesn't mean that I think the tools are of no use or that there should be no research in the area. In a research area like viral weapons, for example, the question of who the research serves might be more obvious. In education the intended product of research won't kill any body, but it does modify a body, so giving thought to the intended beneficiaries is the reason for my question.
elearning is still the reproduction of knowledge.
What might help is a glossary page or wiki. Someone mentioned earlier that we sometimes speak different languages. University professors, K-12 teachers, PhD students and psychologists all use terms in very different ways.
I read elearning as learning with the prefix "e." Learning I define as the reproduction of knowledge. Learning in this definition takes place in an educational setting. Of course Terry and I are using terms differently. He thinks of elearning as having a potential and currently demonstrating a capacity to go far beyond reproduction to creation of knowledge. I don't deny the human potential to create knowledge, but elearning's potential resides in its use as an effective means of communication between two bodies.
Every teacher knows that if a student didn't learn it, you didn't teach it. In an educational setting reproduced knowledge is learned knowledge. Knowledge exists in a body prior to being teachable. When the knowledge comes to exist in a second body it has been reproduced or taught. The example I gave earlier of 8 year-old Canadians who know, at least after school on November 11, that the military secured our rights and freedoms in the wars is reproduced knowledge. It is knowledge communicated from one body to another. These 8 year-olds have this knowledge without any direct experience. This is learned knowledge.
The creation of knowledge is not the same as the reproduction of knowledge. These two meanings in the one term learning will only lead to confusion.
elearning is still the reproduction of knowledge.
What might help is a glossary page or wiki. Someone mentioned earlier that we sometimes speak different languages. University professors, K-12 teachers, PhD students and psychologists all use terms in very different ways.
I read elearning as learning with the prefix "e." Learning I define as the reproduction of knowledge. Learning in this definition takes place in an educational setting. Of course Terry and I are using terms differently. He thinks of elearning as having a potential and currently demonstrating a capacity to go far beyond reproduction to creation of knowledge. I don't deny the human potential to create knowledge, but elearning's potential resides in its use as an effective means of communication between two bodies.
Every teacher knows that if a student didn't learn it, you didn't teach it. In an educational setting reproduced knowledge is learned knowledge. Knowledge exists in a body prior to being teachable. When the knowledge comes to exist in a second body it has been reproduced or taught. The example I gave earlier of 8 year-old Canadians who know, at least after school on November 11, that the military secured our rights and freedoms in the wars is reproduced knowledge. It is knowledge communicated from one body to another. These 8 year-olds have this knowledge without any direct experience. This is learned knowledge.
The creation of knowledge is not the same as the reproduction of knowledge. These two meanings in the one term learning will only lead to confusion.
Hi Rodger,
Thanks for the post. You make a good point about talking/ not talking the same language. I'd like to share my perceptions of e-learning and the context of my situation.
With regard teaching and learning i work in a university and my focus is on adult distance learners . I am wrapped up in the fantastic ability of web 2.0 tools to connect people (and resources) and initially when i think of e-learning i am thinking of connection, community, feedback, clarifications, expressions of opinions etc. On deeper reflection the e for electronic makes me think that it is the electronic resources that are the focus of the word e-learning. In this context I think e-learning can be of value in certain situations in facilitating the reproduction of knowledge, but the overriding important element in e-learning for me is the communication and the dialogue.
I see e-learning as adding variety and improving the options available to learners. When you say you are critical of e-learning, what are the aspects of e-learning that you don't like?
Thanks for the post. You make a good point about talking/ not talking the same language. I'd like to share my perceptions of e-learning and the context of my situation.
With regard teaching and learning i work in a university and my focus is on adult distance learners . I am wrapped up in the fantastic ability of web 2.0 tools to connect people (and resources) and initially when i think of e-learning i am thinking of connection, community, feedback, clarifications, expressions of opinions etc. On deeper reflection the e for electronic makes me think that it is the electronic resources that are the focus of the word e-learning. In this context I think e-learning can be of value in certain situations in facilitating the reproduction of knowledge, but the overriding important element in e-learning for me is the communication and the dialogue.
I see e-learning as adding variety and improving the options available to learners. When you say you are critical of e-learning, what are the aspects of e-learning that you don't like?
Steve, I like elearning. I also see in elearning the ability to accommodate the variety of and improve options available to learners.
When I say critical I mean to take elearning apart and see what it is. Technology is always designed to be used. Research as well is designed to be used. They are also designed to serve interests. I don't have an answer here. If I did would type it out. A pan-Canadian elearning research agenda needs to be explicit about who it will serve. Is it possible to do research in general? Is it possible to create an agenda open to a variety of interests?
When I say critical I mean to take elearning apart and see what it is. Technology is always designed to be used. Research as well is designed to be used. They are also designed to serve interests. I don't have an answer here. If I did would type it out. A pan-Canadian elearning research agenda needs to be explicit about who it will serve. Is it possible to do research in general? Is it possible to create an agenda open to a variety of interests?
I'd argue, Rodger, that your dichotomy between creating and reproduction of knowledge is not as clear as you make out.
There is a clear sense in which knowledge is created through the process of internalising knowledge connecting it in new and creative ways with other knowledge (much of which may have been internalised previously) and interpreting it to others in new ways.
While some might argue that this is not knowledge creation, but knowledge combination, my experience tells me that most really creative knowledge comes, as Newton said from 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
Thus, though I've never taught children only ever worked with adults in a learning context, I would have thought that the 8 year olds in your example would be in a position to create knowledge by linking the rights and freedoms being reproduced for them by their teacher with their experience and knowledge to date such that the reproduced knowledge can be internalised and represented in a way which moves beyond reproduction into creation.
There is a clear sense in which knowledge is created through the process of internalising knowledge connecting it in new and creative ways with other knowledge (much of which may have been internalised previously) and interpreting it to others in new ways.
While some might argue that this is not knowledge creation, but knowledge combination, my experience tells me that most really creative knowledge comes, as Newton said from 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
Thus, though I've never taught children only ever worked with adults in a learning context, I would have thought that the 8 year olds in your example would be in a position to create knowledge by linking the rights and freedoms being reproduced for them by their teacher with their experience and knowledge to date such that the reproduced knowledge can be internalised and represented in a way which moves beyond reproduction into creation.
Hayden, yes, the separation between creating knowledge and reproducing knowledge is not distinct. I'm definitely simplifying. But I should add that knowledge reproduction is not necessarily a bad thing or something educators feel they must move beyond.
While I share Stephen Downe's skepticism about a national e-learning research agenda, I don't think our past failures should necessarily be reason to give up trying. However, if we are to develop an e-learning research agenda that produces practical outcomes without squandering resources we need to be clear about what we mean by E-LEARNING. I think part of the problem with past efforts was the lack of clarity about the focus of the research.
For some, e-learning is exclusively about technology and applications, for others it is about teaching and learning. When I attend some e-learning conferences I sometimes feel like there are two different languages being spoken (and I'm not talking about French and Engilsh).
Stephen Downes talks about "research as infrastructure". I'm not sure exactly what this means. We certainly need infrastructure to conduct research but the research has to be about something. Simply providing the "web spaces, free discussion areas, free applications and free online services" for researchers to work with will not produce research. I think there is value in trying to define a common purpose for our research.
However, I do agree that we should stop trying to create 'commercial applications' or 'commercial networks'. I agree with Paul Stacey that we should focus "on the e-learning teaching and learning process and social experience" and that we should favor applied and action research. I'm not interested in e-learning as technology and e-learning research that attempts to develop technological solutions or that is driven by the view that learning can be "objectified". I"m interested in research that investigates how we learn and teach with technology, research that investigates how educational institutions adapt to technology, how they are organized to support learners and instructors.
That's it for now. I need to take advantage of a rare sunny day here in Vancouver.
Mark.
For some, e-learning is exclusively about technology and applications, for others it is about teaching and learning. When I attend some e-learning conferences I sometimes feel like there are two different languages being spoken (and I'm not talking about French and Engilsh).
Stephen Downes talks about "research as infrastructure". I'm not sure exactly what this means. We certainly need infrastructure to conduct research but the research has to be about something. Simply providing the "web spaces, free discussion areas, free applications and free online services" for researchers to work with will not produce research. I think there is value in trying to define a common purpose for our research.
However, I do agree that we should stop trying to create 'commercial applications' or 'commercial networks'. I agree with Paul Stacey that we should focus "on the e-learning teaching and learning process and social experience" and that we should favor applied and action research. I'm not interested in e-learning as technology and e-learning research that attempts to develop technological solutions or that is driven by the view that learning can be "objectified". I"m interested in research that investigates how we learn and teach with technology, research that investigates how educational institutions adapt to technology, how they are organized to support learners and instructors.
That's it for now. I need to take advantage of a rare sunny day here in Vancouver.
Mark.
Bonjour!
I find it interesting that the discussion has started around Canada losing some ground on the international scene. I know that many Canadian institutions are doing excellent work in promoting their e-learning activities, courses and programs. Is this a macro or micro problem?
I agree with Mark that we have to look at the pedagogical research. The support component he proposes is critical. I would add that the research agenda must look at the transverse application of e-learning, distance education and the use of technologies across the instititution. It should ensure these facets of teachning and learning do not get relegated to continuing education or a Distance education department.
The politics do not only lie at the federal/provincial level but within the institutions in many cases. How do we get a cohesive strategy that goes from the classroom to beyond the borders. Are the politics of generating a profit taking precedence on the effective delivery of education regardless of its format and effectiveness?
Raymond
I wonder if opportunities for funding and recognition of e-learning import to canada isn't hampered by the lack of defintions in the e-learning sphere. E-learning encompasses a growing myriad of approaches and applications and also calls into question what we traditionally refer to as education. With the advent of web 2.0 tools, the consequent growth of social software, the merging of knowledge mgmt and the focus on open and continuous learning the education field is expanding beyond its previous definitions.
Those of us who work in e-learning (who else is going to do it?) need to find ways to have our funding agencies and politicians recognize that e-elearnig is more than educationally related, that it is no longer institutionally bound, nor bound to the events of formal learning.
Living in Wales, which is a bilingual country, part of the UK, similar to Quebec in the way it is part of Canada, I am wondering how you can speak of developing a Pan-Canadian research agenda without one word of French spoken on your Scope site, and without one paper or speaker in the French language? How will you include the French speaking researchers and practitioners in your strategy?
Hi Rita,
Good to see you here.
As a native of Wales I think the language issue may not be as big a barrier in Canada as you suggest it might be.
With the recent Welsh funding council (HEFCW) commitment of resources to Technology Enhanced Learning in line with their Enhancing Learning Through Technology Strategy the focus appears to be on addressing institutional objectives in enhancement (and research which informs practice) in this area.
While the strategy includes the biligual agenda within its objectives it allows it be dealt with at an institutional level more than at a policy level. I would suspect this would also suit the Pan-Canadian context.
It is indeed the case that institutions with large numbers of Welsh learners (e.g. Bangor) are using their strategy funding to support Welsh medium education, and institutions like mine (Glamorgan in the heartland of English monoglot Wales) are using only limited amounts of the resource to see how technology can be an enabler to address teaching through the medium of Welsh for the much smaller numbers of Welsh-speakers we face. I would have thought this type of flexibility is entirely appropriate.
It also strikes me that much of the research agenda in Technology Enhanced Learning is language independent. For example research into student usage, experience and expectations, the technologies that underpin learning, models of learning and learning design all seem to be to be applicable across languages.
So while I can understand the need to be sensitive to the needs of students in a bilingual environment, and recognise that access to blogs, wikis and other online resources may be less possible in French than in English, and significantly less available in Welsh than in English, I wouldn't see this as a barrier to cross-national research into the learning process and learning encounter mediated by technology.
Good to see you here.
As a native of Wales I think the language issue may not be as big a barrier in Canada as you suggest it might be.
With the recent Welsh funding council (HEFCW) commitment of resources to Technology Enhanced Learning in line with their Enhancing Learning Through Technology Strategy the focus appears to be on addressing institutional objectives in enhancement (and research which informs practice) in this area.
While the strategy includes the biligual agenda within its objectives it allows it be dealt with at an institutional level more than at a policy level. I would suspect this would also suit the Pan-Canadian context.
It is indeed the case that institutions with large numbers of Welsh learners (e.g. Bangor) are using their strategy funding to support Welsh medium education, and institutions like mine (Glamorgan in the heartland of English monoglot Wales) are using only limited amounts of the resource to see how technology can be an enabler to address teaching through the medium of Welsh for the much smaller numbers of Welsh-speakers we face. I would have thought this type of flexibility is entirely appropriate.
It also strikes me that much of the research agenda in Technology Enhanced Learning is language independent. For example research into student usage, experience and expectations, the technologies that underpin learning, models of learning and learning design all seem to be to be applicable across languages.
So while I can understand the need to be sensitive to the needs of students in a bilingual environment, and recognise that access to blogs, wikis and other online resources may be less possible in French than in English, and significantly less available in Welsh than in English, I wouldn't see this as a barrier to cross-national research into the learning process and learning encounter mediated by technology.
It would be interesting to hear what a Quebecois has to say about the issue.
Bonjour Rita, Terry … and all others
Rita, your question inspired me to drop in a few thoughts. It is hard to qualify the volume of e-learning research going on in Quebec, but it is growing, in quantity and in quality. As for now, e-learning research remains largely the fact of 2 solitudes. As an example, CIDER and its work is very little known or refered to in Quebec. The same is true with the COI model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000). That would also be true the other way around. Work and models developed by the GIREFAD are very little known or refered to by english researchers. There are also other french research going on in other provinces. Of course, there might be and there is a language barrier, but there are ways to try to overcome it. In Quebec, collaboration with European researchers seems more frequent than with Canadian colleagues. But we could see that situation as an opportunity.
Having worked for the last 5 years in distance education at college level (Cegep@distance), now, as a new faculty member, I am regularly astonished by the resistance many scholars have towards distance education and e-learning. I suspect that this does not help e-learning proposals that are submitted to national committees such as SSHRC.
So I think it is useful to try to define collectively a pan-candian research agenda. Instead of staying on our known grounds, we could try to play together in a larger scale and better defined game. To be pan-canadian, this agenda should not only encompass what is being done in Quebec and other french parts of the country, but pave the road for real pan-canadian collaborations. I think it should address major themes relevant to how we teach, collaborate or learn in different e-learning contexts, and foster theoretical developments as well as more applied research. While it should not be focused on infrastructure development, it should allow for some. There are virtually no way to find ways to fund technological developments in the existing programs.
While in many cases, I believe in the value of grassroots initiatives relying on an « english garden » approach (nurturing the soil and let the lush of the wild flowers find its own organization), you might not be surprised that in this case, I would favor a more ordered « french garden » approach, or to be more precise, a subtle mix of both (planned organization and more or less wild burgeoning).
☺
Bruno
Rita, your question inspired me to drop in a few thoughts. It is hard to qualify the volume of e-learning research going on in Quebec, but it is growing, in quantity and in quality. As for now, e-learning research remains largely the fact of 2 solitudes. As an example, CIDER and its work is very little known or refered to in Quebec. The same is true with the COI model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000). That would also be true the other way around. Work and models developed by the GIREFAD are very little known or refered to by english researchers. There are also other french research going on in other provinces. Of course, there might be and there is a language barrier, but there are ways to try to overcome it. In Quebec, collaboration with European researchers seems more frequent than with Canadian colleagues. But we could see that situation as an opportunity.
Having worked for the last 5 years in distance education at college level (Cegep@distance), now, as a new faculty member, I am regularly astonished by the resistance many scholars have towards distance education and e-learning. I suspect that this does not help e-learning proposals that are submitted to national committees such as SSHRC.
So I think it is useful to try to define collectively a pan-candian research agenda. Instead of staying on our known grounds, we could try to play together in a larger scale and better defined game. To be pan-canadian, this agenda should not only encompass what is being done in Quebec and other french parts of the country, but pave the road for real pan-canadian collaborations. I think it should address major themes relevant to how we teach, collaborate or learn in different e-learning contexts, and foster theoretical developments as well as more applied research. While it should not be focused on infrastructure development, it should allow for some. There are virtually no way to find ways to fund technological developments in the existing programs.
While in many cases, I believe in the value of grassroots initiatives relying on an « english garden » approach (nurturing the soil and let the lush of the wild flowers find its own organization), you might not be surprised that in this case, I would favor a more ordered « french garden » approach, or to be more precise, a subtle mix of both (planned organization and more or less wild burgeoning).
☺
Bruno
Rita, you brought up an excellent point!
Hi all,
As a Quebecois, I dont really care in which language research is performed, i'm more interested with results. I can always translate interesting material.
My Main concern with this discussion so far is that, like many others on the topic, it only seems to care about e-learning at the educational level. A quick search allowed me to find 18 occurences of the expression K-12 and nothing about corporate learning.
There is a lot of reseach performed about the use of elearning in an academic setting but very few about how it is and could be used in the enterprise. Whit the massive retirement of Baby Boomers, businesses are faced with shortages of qualified manpower and e-learning can be seen as a solution to provide employees with just enough, just in time training.
Research is mainly performed by universities, for universities. Having a national agenda migt be a way to redefine reseach priorities and make sure that others fields of application get their fair share of funding.
Cheers.
As a Quebecois, I dont really care in which language research is performed, i'm more interested with results. I can always translate interesting material.
My Main concern with this discussion so far is that, like many others on the topic, it only seems to care about e-learning at the educational level. A quick search allowed me to find 18 occurences of the expression K-12 and nothing about corporate learning.
There is a lot of reseach performed about the use of elearning in an academic setting but very few about how it is and could be used in the enterprise. Whit the massive retirement of Baby Boomers, businesses are faced with shortages of qualified manpower and e-learning can be seen as a solution to provide employees with just enough, just in time training.
Research is mainly performed by universities, for universities. Having a national agenda migt be a way to redefine reseach priorities and make sure that others fields of application get their fair share of funding.
Cheers.
Hi all
I work as Assistant Professor in the department of Distance education. In developing countries distance mode of education has not adopted e-learning completely and same is the case with my university.I am interested to have exposure of the research conduted in the area of e-learning and get food for thought out of your discussion.
Jumani
Guy, I agree with you. elearning includes k-12, colleges, universities, corporate, and continuing education in academic, business, and personal settings.
Thanks Rita for bringing up the mutli-lingual nature of Canada and to Guy for responding. Canada is a country of many nations - most notably First Nations and Quebecois, but others claiming title to nationhood as well. Thus, we use the term Pan-Canadian rather than national to describe many of the components of our social and civil life that other countries would refer to as national.
There are Francophone participants in this conference - both from Quebec and other locations in Canada. In addition one of our keynote speakers is Gilbert Paqueete from UQaM in Montreal. I have asked Gilbert to speak specifically about Quebec issues related to an e-learning research agenda and of course welcome all comments in French or in English.
That being said, this conference will likely not engage as many Francophone Canadians as we wish. But "better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"!
Terry
There are Francophone participants in this conference - both from Quebec and other locations in Canada. In addition one of our keynote speakers is Gilbert Paqueete from UQaM in Montreal. I have asked Gilbert to speak specifically about Quebec issues related to an e-learning research agenda and of course welcome all comments in French or in English.
That being said, this conference will likely not engage as many Francophone Canadians as we wish. But "better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"!
Terry
Bonjour tout le monde,
Just a quick line before the conference opens. As a French Canadian myself, I want to thank those who expressed concerns about the francophone component of the conference. Personally, I think I am more interested in networking opportunities with people from all over the world than in fewer opportunities in my own language.
As an Academic Adviser in a Canadian university, I'm responsible for the distance education programs and I look forward to exchanging views through the course of this conference!
Just a quick line before the conference opens. As a French Canadian myself, I want to thank those who expressed concerns about the francophone component of the conference. Personally, I think I am more interested in networking opportunities with people from all over the world than in fewer opportunities in my own language.
As an Academic Adviser in a Canadian university, I'm responsible for the distance education programs and I look forward to exchanging views through the course of this conference!
Bonjour Annie!
I agree with you that it is most important to network with each other regardless of our language. It is however very important that there are mechanisms to ensure that there is a flow of information between individuals in their first language. These mechanisms must take into account the cultural challenges related with effective communication (i.e. doing research in a linguistic or cultural minority environment).
Il est souvent difficile de transmettre l'information du français à l'anglais faute d'interprètes ou même d'auditeurs. De plus il ne faut pas oublier qu'être francophone n'implique pas automatiquement que nous sommes bilingues. Being a francophone in Quebec does not imply the same reality as being a francophone outside Quebec.
As Rita indicates, the linguistic and I'd add, the related cultural aspects must be considered within the agenda to ensure inclusion of all perspectives.
With e-learning, don't we face similar cultural challenges? The culture of the distance education course, the blended on-campus course or the continuing education course have not always been considered as equivalent as they entail different "cultures". Is this an issue to adress in the agenda?
Salut Raymond and all!
I was only speaking for myself indeed when I mentioned that personally, I'd rather deal with a larger network in another language than a much smaller one in my first language. I think many of our anglophone friends don't even realize the challenges associated with French-only publications that will only be read by a handful of people because of the language barrier. Some food for thought when it comes to reflecting on a research agenda! Whether we agree or not, that's the francophone reality and I face those challenges every day.
Having said that, I want everybody to know that there are many active and dedicated francophones on the distance learning scene in Canada. I was at the REFAD conference in Québec last week where some 150 people gathered, most of them scholars, and we do have quite a rich professionnal network.
So thank you Raymong for bringing this up. C'est l'fun de te retrouver sur ce site et à bientôt!
I was only speaking for myself indeed when I mentioned that personally, I'd rather deal with a larger network in another language than a much smaller one in my first language. I think many of our anglophone friends don't even realize the challenges associated with French-only publications that will only be read by a handful of people because of the language barrier. Some food for thought when it comes to reflecting on a research agenda! Whether we agree or not, that's the francophone reality and I face those challenges every day.
Having said that, I want everybody to know that there are many active and dedicated francophones on the distance learning scene in Canada. I was at the REFAD conference in Québec last week where some 150 people gathered, most of them scholars, and we do have quite a rich professionnal network.
So thank you Raymong for bringing this up. C'est l'fun de te retrouver sur ce site et à bientôt!
Hi,
I'm trying to find out if there are parallels to what we are attempting to other pan-Canadian research agendas. Are there any in other disciplines? Is there one in nanotechnology or canadian history research or .... Is there one in education research generally? Do these other 'communities of practice' not feel the need for one? If not, why not? If there is another discipline that has developed a pan-Canadian research agenda what does it look like? Is it a model we can use? Is it heirarchical or produser or ...?
peter t.
I'm trying to find out if there are parallels to what we are attempting to other pan-Canadian research agendas. Are there any in other disciplines? Is there one in nanotechnology or canadian history research or .... Is there one in education research generally? Do these other 'communities of practice' not feel the need for one? If not, why not? If there is another discipline that has developed a pan-Canadian research agenda what does it look like? Is it a model we can use? Is it heirarchical or produser or ...?
peter t.
Hi all,
I'm very excited to be here, with so many conversations happening at once.
While I am not based at a university, I am a trained researcher (PhD, Educational Technology) and participating in the conference to help refine our evaluation model. An additional goal of our Centre is to contribute more broadly to the theory and practice of CoPs. I have a million research questions I'd like to address... for me, a pan-Canadian agenda is timely!
Language
Methods
I’m enjoying the SCOPE conversations around methods, particularly Terry's slide on the definitions of research and evaluation. As I work on the evaluation strategy with an Ed. Tech. intern, I am struggling with more “traditional” notions of research and evaluation. I can’t seem to wrap my head around “controlled” research in the context of CoPs that are anything but controlled environments! Even the conventional notions of formative and summative evaluations must be re-considered in learning environments that do not have a set end point. Lots to reflect upon...
Hope
Peter,
while I have no experience of the Canadian context I would argue that disciplines tend to mature in similar ways. The establishment of the Royal Society in the UK in 1660 was designed to get the scientific research agenda credibility. A credibility which after almost 350 years we take so much for granted that those using other research frameworks use their principles as the basis for any disagreement. At the time the views were seen as marginal and needing a focus agenda to gain credibility.
Given elearnings young age as a discipline of research I see the endeavour you in Canada and those of us in the rest of the world are engaged in as setting the framework for the debate, so that in 350 years no one would question the approach or methods we might take, even though they may now.
I therefore think Terry's manifesto that he presented last night is a real challenge to move beyond the early (we do it so we had better understand it) stage of research, to one which provides a open framework against which research can be funded assessed and evaluated based on what the community of researchers and practitioners sees as relevant, rather than simply buying into the existing research agendas of the successors to the founders of the Royal Society in the scientific fields.
What for me is really hopeful is that our arguments for evidence based research which is not necessarily numeric seems as radical today as their use of positivist approaches did in the 1660s.
while I have no experience of the Canadian context I would argue that disciplines tend to mature in similar ways. The establishment of the Royal Society in the UK in 1660 was designed to get the scientific research agenda credibility. A credibility which after almost 350 years we take so much for granted that those using other research frameworks use their principles as the basis for any disagreement. At the time the views were seen as marginal and needing a focus agenda to gain credibility.
Given elearnings young age as a discipline of research I see the endeavour you in Canada and those of us in the rest of the world are engaged in as setting the framework for the debate, so that in 350 years no one would question the approach or methods we might take, even though they may now.
I therefore think Terry's manifesto that he presented last night is a real challenge to move beyond the early (we do it so we had better understand it) stage of research, to one which provides a open framework against which research can be funded assessed and evaluated based on what the community of researchers and practitioners sees as relevant, rather than simply buying into the existing research agendas of the successors to the founders of the Royal Society in the scientific fields.
What for me is really hopeful is that our arguments for evidence based research which is not necessarily numeric seems as radical today as their use of positivist approaches did in the 1660s.
Hello Sir,
I am from India and found this initiative interesting (possibly initiate a similar on in Indian Sub continent).
As I understand, 'Pan-canadian' would essentially include entities like utilities, NGOs, individuals ofcourse.Now the future research agenda should have on priority the ability to face challenges arising within city infrastructure due to natural disaster, combat like situations besides the 'normal' component of enhancing the reach of content and expertise, commercial dimension .E-learning framework could thus serve extremely important role in the times to come.
Today every body moves with quite a significant computing and communication power in pocket- the mobile phone.Almost each individual is having his/her digital version.
Every individual is thus reachable any time any where.
So, how to exploit this FEATURE for learning?
The learning may occur in short bursts any time any place and in his/her context.More importantly the agenda must focus also on exploiting the eLearning framework for handling any emergency that may arise within city infrastructure.So the pan-canadian research agenda must focus on:
1.The future communication technology products
2.Leveraging these ICTs to enhance reach and effectiveness of pedagogy
3.Creation of networked communities and help groups.
4.What is relevant to be learnt?
5.Addressing diversity in language and understanding.
6.Inclusion of defense expertise in the learning setup in civilian activities.
7.Handling emergencies.
Cheers
sandeep dixit
This is a very different and interesting question. What becomes of Elearning in combat and disaster situations?