I enjoyed John Biss's presentation today, but he seemed to be a bit unclear about the role of CCL in forging, funding or supporting our proposed agenda. I know the challenges of working in a new organization with uncertain funding, but CCL does have a 'pan Canadian mandate', has a vision of "To be a catalyst for lifelong learning across Canada', has some funds and is developing a national network through their 5 "knowledge centres.
However, as noted by the two year delay in releasing today's report - is not known for speed or really much innovation. John noted that the yet to be released thematic review of e-learning in Canada argues for a research agenda, but it is just a "possible future" that probably will be sold as a recommendation of the author's rather (as was the case with the International review) than a plan by CCL.
How do you feel we can best utilize the resources and support of CCL to enhance pan Canadian e-learning research?
In reply to Terry Anderson
Re: Role of CCL in Pan Canadian e-learning research agenda
by Eugene Kowch -
Given the report you mention, I think that we can best utilize the support of CCL to enhance pan Canadian e-learning research by working more closely with them and by creating a powerful, multidisciplinary research (and practice) network across Canada.
Perhaps CCL could also link with HRDC and Economic Development agencies in Canada, as well as Foreign Policy agencies to understand (perhaps even in terms of human capital and GDP) what e-learning is doing for Canadians (and how good research is essential in both describing and predicting that reality). The report mentioned funding contstraints that might have reduced the scope of such a critically important piece of work - so perhaps collaborative funding development work for such research to help CCL would also help bind us together to create a conceptual, ideological, organizational and operational reality that will see Canadian e-Learning lead the world.
In reply to Terry Anderson
Re: Role of CCL in Pan Canadian e-learning research agenda
by George Siemens -
Hi Terry - your question gets to the heart of what needs to be done with any elearning research agenda.
We can have lovely conversations here, form connections with a few colleagues, agree on the value of research within elearning, and even craft a white paper recommending steps forward. While these elements make the conference worthwhile, the critical question quickly arises: how will we transition what we do here into some type of lever for influencing change?
While that is partly the objective of week three, I think we need to consider a multi-prong approach:
1. Loose coordination between groups who have a stake in research in the learning/technology field (this can include groups like CVU, COHERE, CIDER, and others that may not in themselves have significant leverage, but as a loosely connected group can present some type of indication of momentum).
2. Formal coordination with groups (as Eugene mentioned) such as HRDC or other governmental stakeholders. While these groups may not be directly involved in research funding, they benefit from research, and might therefore have interest in the outcome of our recommendations.
3. Engage in conversations/focus groups with groups that have a loose mandate nationally - i.e. CMEC and CCL.
Part of the challenge here is not simply that we are trying to create some type of research agenda, but we are also trying to create awareness (and as a result, policy changes) of the value of an agenda to funding partners. Creating and recommending a strategy is the easy part. The long, hard slog will be at the policy level. I'm hoping as we move into our final week, we can start discussion on whether we have a core group here with energy/time to contribute to what will likely be a three year, not three week, task :).
We can have lovely conversations here, form connections with a few colleagues, agree on the value of research within elearning, and even craft a white paper recommending steps forward. While these elements make the conference worthwhile, the critical question quickly arises: how will we transition what we do here into some type of lever for influencing change?
While that is partly the objective of week three, I think we need to consider a multi-prong approach:
1. Loose coordination between groups who have a stake in research in the learning/technology field (this can include groups like CVU, COHERE, CIDER, and others that may not in themselves have significant leverage, but as a loosely connected group can present some type of indication of momentum).
2. Formal coordination with groups (as Eugene mentioned) such as HRDC or other governmental stakeholders. While these groups may not be directly involved in research funding, they benefit from research, and might therefore have interest in the outcome of our recommendations.
3. Engage in conversations/focus groups with groups that have a loose mandate nationally - i.e. CMEC and CCL.
Part of the challenge here is not simply that we are trying to create some type of research agenda, but we are also trying to create awareness (and as a result, policy changes) of the value of an agenda to funding partners. Creating and recommending a strategy is the easy part. The long, hard slog will be at the policy level. I'm hoping as we move into our final week, we can start discussion on whether we have a core group here with energy/time to contribute to what will likely be a three year, not three week, task :).
In reply to George Siemens
Re: Role of CCL in Pan Canadian e-learning research agenda
by Eugene Kowch -
These are brilliant thoughts George - I like the idea of opening channels and here with Terry's shared experience with systemic or organized e-learning efforts in Canada, I see better that there is much to do in terms of putting together visions somewhat like those in the CCL report. I'm sorry not to be up on my reading on e-learning as I focus so much on systemic change and instructional design en generale.. but I haven't experienced much on collaborative, disaggregated e-learning strategy 'across jurisdictions' until the CCL report -- and it exictes me!
An organization like CCL has, by my humble understanding and work/study with its founders - a unique place and potential in the learning and education landscape. I think of John Hellewell's great work on Well-Being and see that institutional thought in the creation of CCL - so much potential for the formal and informal build that is needed for a sustainable e-learning initiative. I really believe that R&D in e-learning in Canada, through the great research networks and public intelligence as well as military and private knowledge developments.. could (must) be used help us think ahead to how CCL or any such stategy development process.
As Terry mentions - the funds for developing preliminary ideas of how e-learning can be 'organized' across the country (in a truly 'Pan' way as Terry mentions) appear to have been um.. how does one say... meagure... compared to oh say the even student investment in e-learning (tuition) as a simple measure. I am not calling for funding here but I mean consider the investment countries make in the name of e-learning (access, infrastructure as a minimum).. I'll bet we are talking about nearly a hundred million and perhaps in the Billions of $ when we consider the investment provinces and governments (not to mention corporations and international enterprise) have made in e-learning across this great country. I know well that provincial education jurisdictions are more constrained in scope than say industrial e-learning systems but perhaps a new way of disaggregating the thinking to aggregate vision on e-learning uniquely is possible now... I guess what I am blathering about is caused by my inability to scale the total $-in to e-learning in the country compared to the total $-in to thinking through organizations and planning so we can sustain, lead and leverage both intellectual and operational e-capability so far - as the CCL report reminds.
Perhaps earlier OECD and APEC similar policy/development thinking could be translated into our Canadian context today, so that we can understand net investments in e-learning by government, industry and education systems (K-20) so that we can imagine the total investment in e-learning simply in terms of the inputs as a start to planning to leverage cross-country capabilities and capacities via aggregated processes? I suspect the Auditor Generals of the provinces and of the country have such data, as well as human resource/labor development divisions.. this has me thinking (and learning!). Thanks folks!