Should we be dividing up our research agenda according to initiatives in specific sectors?

Should we be dividing up our research agenda according to initiatives in specific sectors?

by Michael Power -
Number of replies: 5

Hi,

First of all, I want to thank the organisers, Terry, Sylvia, George and Paul, for having launched this great conference.

Probably like a lot of you, I’ve been in and out of this conference, having to juggle other duties. I have to admit though that I have been somewhat intimidated by the very SIZE of our conference theme and have found myself wondering how I might make a contribution. Also, probably like a lot of you, I have very particular interests, questions I’m asking in my research and projects that are by definition extremely focussed. The challenge in this conference, as I see it, is to each contribute in our own way to a bigger picture of e-learning since there are so many vital areas of e-learning research to be done.

In a nutshell, I’m wondering if, to find a way of BOTH

- participating in a concerted effort to establish a Pan-Canadian research agenda

- making this agenda operational i.e. learning more about and encouraging grassroots initiatives in e-learning research,

should we,

- firstly, look at developing an e-learning research agenda IN SPECIFIC AREAS, i.e. on a sector-by-sector basis? And then,

- secondly, attempt to map out a more encompassing research agenda?

Mike

In reply to Michael Power

Re: Should we be dividing up our research agenda according to initiatives in specific sectors?

by Michael Power -

Just to continue this line of thought a bit...

E-learning is so pervasive in society today and can be researched in countless ways, we,a s a community of scholars and practitioners, need to identify and focus on key areas (as Nalin mentioned in a posting in another section). One which is uppermost in my mind is higher education. For instance, according to OCDE, higher education (termed tertiary education in this report) is key to economic prosperity: "The widespread recognition that tertiary education is a major driver of economic competitiveness in an increasingly knowledge-driven global economy has made high quality tertiary education more important than ever before (p.13)."

They go on to note that supply of TE has changed: "These days, tertiary education is much more diversified and encompasses new types of tertiary education institutions (TEIs) such as polytechnics, university colleges, or technological institutes (p. 13)".

Indeed, with regard to supply, a new generation of students are requiring changes: “New generations of students, more concerned about the link between their studies and working life and newly empowered by a shifting balance of demand and supply may press TEIs for wider flexibility in provision and greater relevance in teaching than they have heretofore” (p. 14).

In speaking of “flexibility, e-learning naturally comes to mind. And E-learning is also recognized by OCDE as playing a increasing role in TE: “Modes of delivery have also considerably diversified. The development of more flexible ways of provision such as distance learning and e-learning has improved access to a wider range of student populations and contributed to meet increasingly diverse demand" (OECD, 2005b) (p. 36).

So I believe HE/TE should be a key area we focus on, not to take anything away from e-learning research in K-12 or in healthcare which are also other key areas that come to mind.

Michael

Source : http://oecd-conference-teks.iscte.pt/downloads/OECD_vol1.pdf

In reply to Michael Power

Re: Should we be dividing up our research agenda according to initiatives in specific sectors?

by Selina Rawe -
Hello Michael,

Your question is an interesting one, in that it can go either way. While the scope of this conference is broad, by bringing the important issues to the forefront is paramount in order for further steps be taken. It could actually draw out other important issues that have been overlooked or it could create a natural breakdown into more componential parts.

I think that the latter is more likely to happen just because the minds involved in this process are focused on their particular areas of expertise. The chats that I’ve read have shown that individuals are trying to apply what they are hearing/reading to their own specialties. As they connect with more and more like-minded people, they will focus their efforts on creating a more tailored agenda for themselves that they will then try to connect to the larger agenda. But I also think that a lot of what they do will be guided by an existing or proposed agenda. (does that make sense?).

I mentioned in today’s seminar that the grassroots are a more likely drivers of agenda making than the policy makers, because the grassroots not only have more invested, they have greater insight into the process. I feel that at another point both will work on the research and collaborations but the initiative has to be taken by the grassroots.

In reply to Selina Rawe

Re: Should we be dividing up our research agenda according to initiatives in specific sectors?

by Michael Power -

Hi Selina,

Glad to read your response to my posting.

Re "create a natural breakdown into more componential parts": I'd see this
as one of possibly several natural and desirable outcomes of this
conference. i.e. finding out who is doing what and where and creating
grassroots initiatives among interested parties in "particular areas of
expertise" (or areas of research). For instance, there are individuals who
are working in e-learning & K-12, with say a subgroup in high-school level
language teaching. They would naturally have lots to discuss, so I would
assume they would want to discuss with and hear more from individuals
involved in this area specifically than from indidividuals in other areas.
More but not exclusively. To get funding, like-minded academics and
practicioners have to pool what resources they have and focus on a common
goal, right?

Re: But I also think that a lot of what they do will be guided by an
existing or proposed agenda. (does that make sense?).
Ya, I think it does, unfortunately. When applying for funding, I am slowly
coming to the conclusion (I am a new researcher) that it is just a little
like a game of cat and mouse, the researcher being the mouse. You really
want a piece of cheese (some of the older mice in your Department went out
and got a piece and expect you to also). So you devise this elaborate plan
whereby you hypothesize where the cheese is and how you plan to get it. Then
you execute the plan, constantly aware that by doing so you may get eaten
alive. Doh!  (Up until that realisation, the whole process was almost
exciting.) So you're thinking, if my calculations are correct, the cheese is
over there in the corner. This should be simple... but it could go terribly
wrong as well..:

Scenario 1:  I scamper along the wall, get to the corner, grab the cheese
and make it back... alive. Then I show off my cheese, brag about how big it
is and generally disgust everybody. (Of course, now that I have the thing, I
have to start knawing on it... finding a place to knaw it, and finding some
reliable assistant knawers, etc.).

Scenario 2: I scamper along the wall, get to the corner, no cheese! (at
least that is what I'm told...) Dang. I head back to my hole in the
wall...cheeseless (actually, cheesed off...) and face my peers, especially
the Big Cheese...

Scenario 2b: oh ya, not only do I head home cheddarless, in the process, I
get roughed up by the cat, for no apparent reason. I mean, I have very
little meat on my loins... couldn't the cat (nazi) just say, "No cheese for
you ... come back next year...(for you Seinfeldians out there) oh, but I
did like the way you scampered around looking for it... very lithe". So
cruel.

Before even leaving my hole, before even putting my plan together, couldn't
the cat just have said: "Listen up rodents! We don't have a lot of cheese
this year. You don't know it but we're hiding it under the couch. The really
old, seasoned mice will know where to look and will likely get most of it
before you even et a whiff of it. But hey, run around, have fun and you
never know, you may get lucky... Oh, and did I mention that other old,
seasoned mice (standing on the sidelines) will be showing the old, seasoned
mice where to look?"

Ok, ok I'll stop... I'm just having some fun here. It is Sat morning after
all (and I should be mowing the lawn...).

Mike

In reply to Michael Power

Re: Should we be dividing up our research agenda according to initiatives in specific sectors?

by Jo Ann Hammond-Meiers -
Hi Mike,
E-Learning continuing the mice and cat story.

The experienced mice were very busy guarding the year's limited cheese that came from the fast diminishing factory supply and the young speedy mice realized that they would have to begin to create a virtual cheese-world with their blogs, e-mails, Youtubes, Webconferencings, and many other nifty e-tools.

Underneath these parallel worlds there were a growing number of e-learning changes happening. These evolving e-learnings were aided by amazing technology, and yet, were about to take everyone by surprise, which is no surprise at all when one considers the amount of possibilities in the unknown universe.

The Every Person Admitted (E.P.A.) generations was starting to create Web 3.0, mobile phone computers, and The tubes -- (hope that I didn't disclose top secrets as I am making this psi-fi up and am only extrapolating trends).

The majority of the mice belonged to the E.P.A. of the e-learning conference but only because everyone was admitted and word spread fast that it was free. (Unfortunately, that did not seem to matter to most people as they did not log in and the old system is still having some difficulty finding out which conferences to attend).

The E.P.A. generation was beginning their day with mindful meditation, in hopes that they could pass the important information on to whoever was at the top of the ladder -- someone said "policy makers", or at least have the development of e-learning creative consciousness.

One day, a group of speedy mice sent out an e-mail to not the E.P.A. -- even the working practitioner-mice and then the free e-learning conference began to happen.

Eventually the groups of mice started to be aware that they might want to learn more from each other and that cheese might not be the whole reason tor their existence.

Just maybe -- values in common -- at the heart of their mice-e-world, might start to hold their endeavors together. This lasted a short while -- and because of the masses of mice -- they started to break off in smaller interests groups.

Mice are still weighing in for the third week (Yeah)...but the cat still is there too -- and all the mice know it.
To be continued...

Jo Ann

p.s.(from one who used to have rodents as pets and saw how movement helped them survive)
In reply to Jo Ann Hammond-Meiers

Re: Should we be dividing up our research agenda according to initiatives in specific sectors?

by Michael Power -

Hahaha .. JoAnn, I never saw that coming! (It's what I've always liked about conferences, real or virtual, a chance to get to know people and have some good old fun!) I especially liked the "virtual cheese-world" and "the groups of mice started to be aware that they might want to learn more from each other and that cheese might not be the whole reason to their existence". Made me feel better about my not getting my SSHRC (but I did get part of a NSERC... can’t win’em all). Indeed, attending virtual conferences sure cuts down on the need for research funding in the first place. I think the main ingredient is simply "wanting to know", the rest will follow.

During this conference, we've heard quite a bit about well-funded research initiatives simply not panning out, which is unfortunate for many reasons: the lost opportunity, "the (research) road not taken", our facing the same questions all over again and, not the least of misfortunes, the larder being bare for all those who come along later on (keeping with our cat and mouse story (:-).

I understand a lot of quality research begins more humbly, with a need, then an idea and hopefully a shared passion, all wrapped into one. This conference is leading us to various levels of realisation about e-learning and how we, as researchers or practitioners, are examining questions (both scientifically… and metaphorically) that we believe need answering. For instance, I lived in Central Africa for many years and often saw human potential not being recognized. But even when it was, the means were simply not there to fully develop it. I used to dream of somehow being able to tap into the huge university system we have in Canada. I still do, right here in Canada, watching faculty "bottled up" teaching on campus and interacting with the well-heeled few, while we have the means at our disposal to be in instant contact virtually anyone, virtually anywhere, like students who ardently desire to learn, to share, to coconstruct knowledge and thus to recreate society to the extent of their possibilities. (Ok, listen: if you hear violins playing in the background, it’s just your imagination.)

Anyway, E-learning to me is learning and creating learning opportunity using whatever means I have at my disposal. They just happen to be electronic nowadays. Maybe when we only had stone tablets, hammers and chisels, they might have called it S-learning. Or P-learning (with papyrus). People say: it's the learning that counts. Absolutley right. But, as an educational technologist, I also firmly believe that the means also matter, in that greater, better, faster and more advanced means can (don’t always) amplify learning possibilities. They make what was formerly impossible and inconceivable, a fait accompli, even commonplace in retrospect. That is why I do what I do...even if the cat begrudges me some cheese every now and then.

Mike