Thursday, 22 January 2009
A New Name for a New Chapter
Being as H810 is essentially over now (results pending) I decided that the blog name H810 And Other Stories didn't really fit anymore. Being as I do want to keep the blog for general professional development, reflection and other interesting things I come across along the way I have decided to rename the blog "Little Bits of Learning" and will be on the new domain http://www.littlebitsoflearning.blogspot.com from now on.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
A little light accessibility relief.
For anyone after a little light relief from the final week stresses of H810, here's a fairly amusing and possibly even thought provoking little song about the W3C WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Thanks to Sarah Horrigan's original blog post for introducing me to the joys of eLearning inspired Hip Hop. Enjoy!
End of Course Reflection
This morning I have submitted my ECA (End of Course Assessment) paper for H810. I'm quite happy with what I have written and confident that I have included the things I wanted to, made some useful observations and reflected on my context sufficently. Hopefully I have done enough to get me the final pass grade I need to complete my MA ODE, get those extra letters after my name and have some fun wearing the silly blue outfit at a graduation ceromony in the summer.
I feel a little bit strange actually. I've spent the last two and a half years studying, while working full time and also generally trying to have a life. In the only short gap I have had between courses I got married, so things have been pretty busy non-stop since about errrmmm ... 2006. I'm not complaining, I like it that way and would be bored otherwise, which is probably why I'm feeling ever so slightly apprehensive!
What on earth am I going to do?
Perhaps I might manage to get round to catching up on some housework? It would be nice to live in an organised and tidy house again :) And our garden requires some serious attention this year. I may even find time to read some books for fun!
I feel a little bit strange actually. I've spent the last two and a half years studying, while working full time and also generally trying to have a life. In the only short gap I have had between courses I got married, so things have been pretty busy non-stop since about errrmmm ... 2006. I'm not complaining, I like it that way and would be bored otherwise, which is probably why I'm feeling ever so slightly apprehensive!
What on earth am I going to do?
Perhaps I might manage to get round to catching up on some housework? It would be nice to live in an organised and tidy house again :) And our garden requires some serious attention this year. I may even find time to read some books for fun!
Seale Chapter 13 - Notes
Seale (2006, ch.13) discusses the development of accessibility within an organisation as the creation of a constellation of practice, rather than a community of practice. How helpful do you think this approach is?
Would it enable you and your colleagues to identify what changes or developments are needed and why they are needed?I think further development would be needed first, for example introducing a method of showing where channels of communication are stronger/weaker, which stakeholder groups have greater influence and so on.
I think this is quite helpful. It provides a useful method of identifying the different roles within a community of practice, while acknowledging their influence on one another.
Do you think that Figure 13.1 on page 182 would be useful as a trigger for discussion within your organisation?
Seale's diagram is made with Higher Education in mind and would need to be adjusted to better represent the groups in my Secondary education context.
Would it enable you and your colleagues to identify what changes or developments are needed and why they are needed?
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Seale Chapter 12 - Issues
Identify three issues that are of most relevance or of most interest to you. Write two or three paragraphs about each of these three issues, either as private notes or in your blog.
Can novices in an accessible elearning activity system eventually become experts?
Although it is probably possible for a novice to learn enough through the accessible elearning activity system to eventually become an expert in theory. In practice however, it is unlikely that any subject who is not already a specialist in accessible elearning but is inviolved in the production of elearning materials to be able to devote a significant proportion of time to becoming an expert. Division of labour is likely to be an important factor in the resolution of this issue, and the division of labout needs to be influenced and made clear by an improvement of the rules (internal formal policy).
Are there contraditions between central components of an accessible e-learning system and can the identification of these contradictions help to develop and progress future practice?
Identification and isolation of the contradictions may help to provide clues as to the core problems that cause conflict between different components. Identification of seperate issues may helpmake the task of conflict resolution more manageable.
Is there a conflict between the object and division of labour that is is pulling different stakeholders apart and preventing them from working together to meet the objective?
From what I can tell, and this is true in my context, insufficient communication between stakeholders seems to cause much of the conflict. In order to work together to meet the objetive stakeholders must work together to develop a learning community based on sharing of knowledge and experience ... but how can we do this?
Can novices in an accessible elearning activity system eventually become experts?
Although it is probably possible for a novice to learn enough through the accessible elearning activity system to eventually become an expert in theory. In practice however, it is unlikely that any subject who is not already a specialist in accessible elearning but is inviolved in the production of elearning materials to be able to devote a significant proportion of time to becoming an expert. Division of labour is likely to be an important factor in the resolution of this issue, and the division of labout needs to be influenced and made clear by an improvement of the rules (internal formal policy).
Are there contraditions between central components of an accessible e-learning system and can the identification of these contradictions help to develop and progress future practice?
Identification and isolation of the contradictions may help to provide clues as to the core problems that cause conflict between different components. Identification of seperate issues may helpmake the task of conflict resolution more manageable.
Is there a conflict between the object and division of labour that is is pulling different stakeholders apart and preventing them from working together to meet the objective?
From what I can tell, and this is true in my context, insufficient communication between stakeholders seems to cause much of the conflict. In order to work together to meet the objetive stakeholders must work together to develop a learning community based on sharing of knowledge and experience ... but how can we do this?
Seale Chapter 12 - Notes
Seale identifies six potential areas for conflict or contradiction within an organisation or activity system. What potential contradictions exist in your organisation and why?
Subject and Tools - Formal external rules such as guidelines and legislation are unclear, evaluation and repair tools are misunderstood. There is also a general technophobia (for want of a better word) regarding the publishing software for online content in general.
Subject and Rules - Insufficient motivation provided by formal internal rules such as accessibility policy for example no requirement or deadline for compliance.
Subject and Object - The need provision of elearning is an issue in itself. Becasue accessibility was not built in to elearning implementation from the outset this now creates an additional conflict. There is also a general lack of knowledge and understanding regarding elearning and accessibility amongst subjects.
Subject/Community and Division of Labour - It is unclear to the subject/community who has responsibility for ensuring accessibility, as well as having little motivation to find out or make changes.
How helpful is it to conceptualise the development of accessibility within your organisation as an activity system? Do you think that Figure 12.1 on page 165 would be useful as a trigger for discussion within your organisation? Would it enable you and your colleagues to identify what changes or developments are needed and why they are needed?
The figure 12.1 is quite useful for identifying and separating different areas of conflict. This can break down the issues into more manageable chunks and help to identify potential resolutions.
Subject and Tools - Formal external rules such as guidelines and legislation are unclear, evaluation and repair tools are misunderstood. There is also a general technophobia (for want of a better word) regarding the publishing software for online content in general.
Subject and Rules - Insufficient motivation provided by formal internal rules such as accessibility policy for example no requirement or deadline for compliance.
Subject and Object - The need provision of elearning is an issue in itself. Becasue accessibility was not built in to elearning implementation from the outset this now creates an additional conflict. There is also a general lack of knowledge and understanding regarding elearning and accessibility amongst subjects.
Subject/Community and Division of Labour - It is unclear to the subject/community who has responsibility for ensuring accessibility, as well as having little motivation to find out or make changes.
How helpful is it to conceptualise the development of accessibility within your organisation as an activity system? Do you think that Figure 12.1 on page 165 would be useful as a trigger for discussion within your organisation? Would it enable you and your colleagues to identify what changes or developments are needed and why they are needed?
The figure 12.1 is quite useful for identifying and separating different areas of conflict. This can break down the issues into more manageable chunks and help to identify potential resolutions.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Seale Chapter 12 - Activity Theory
I'm trying to formulate a definition of Activity Theory as I work through Seale chapter 12 ... It's a new theory for me and I'm finding Seale's language a bit flowery for my liking and getting myself confused. In 'Gemma-speak' here is my understanding of Activity Theory and an example of it's application in the context of the ECA. As I understand it:
The subject : The student writing the ECA
The object: To write a 6000 word essay
The tools: Word processor, set text, internet research and online journals (and perhaps even a pen, paper, highlighters and post-it notes if you are old school!)
The activity of writing the ECA can be broken down into different levels called actions and operations. Objects become outcomes as they are completed. One such action may be to read the set text, an operation of reading the set text might be turning the pages (that's if you have it printed out, or clicking next/scrolling down if you are using the digital version).
A central concept of activity theory is the transformation of objects into outcomes. In this example the outcome will be a completed ECA. Activity is motivated by the need to transform the object into an outcome (completion of the ECA by the cut-off date).
An activity is not a fixed entity and will undergo development at various levels (actions and operations) creating a history. For example, the action of reading one article might lead to new ideas for the ECA which require further research (new actions and operations) to be carried out in order to complete the ECA (transforming the object into an outcome). *
Theorists view activities as a series of nodes. If the subject is taking part in several activities at the same time these nodes may overlap causing conflict. For the ECA where we are required to investigate three separate issues, one issue may directly contradict with another. Resolution of these conflicts is required to transform the object (complete the ECA with a suitable conclusion).
*I missed out a part about Mediation ... I couldn't quite grasp where these relationships fitted in but I will update as I figure it out!!!
The subject : The student writing the ECA
The object: To write a 6000 word essay
The tools: Word processor, set text, internet research and online journals (and perhaps even a pen, paper, highlighters and post-it notes if you are old school!)
The activity of writing the ECA can be broken down into different levels called actions and operations. Objects become outcomes as they are completed. One such action may be to read the set text, an operation of reading the set text might be turning the pages (that's if you have it printed out, or clicking next/scrolling down if you are using the digital version).
A central concept of activity theory is the transformation of objects into outcomes. In this example the outcome will be a completed ECA. Activity is motivated by the need to transform the object into an outcome (completion of the ECA by the cut-off date).
An activity is not a fixed entity and will undergo development at various levels (actions and operations) creating a history. For example, the action of reading one article might lead to new ideas for the ECA which require further research (new actions and operations) to be carried out in order to complete the ECA (transforming the object into an outcome). *
Theorists view activities as a series of nodes. If the subject is taking part in several activities at the same time these nodes may overlap causing conflict. For the ECA where we are required to investigate three separate issues, one issue may directly contradict with another. Resolution of these conflicts is required to transform the object (complete the ECA with a suitable conclusion).
*I missed out a part about Mediation ... I couldn't quite grasp where these relationships fitted in but I will update as I figure it out!!!
Monday, 5 January 2009
Seale Chapter 11 - Issues
Identify three issues that are of most relevance or of most interest to you. Write two or three paragraphs about each of these three issues, either as private notes or in your blog.
What are the formal and informal rules of accessibility?
Formal - External. The Disability Discrimination Act and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act have the most influence on the core business activity in a secondary education context. The W3C WAI WCAG also have relevance for the schools online content such as the website, intranet, extranet and online curriculum.
Formal - Internal. The schools Disability Policy and Social Inclusion Policy, which refer to the DDA and SENDA.
Informal. Online training materials for the production of content give guidelines on accessibility best practice.
How are the formal rules being regulated and enforced?
In an online learning sense they are not really being regulated and enforced due to limited availability of expertise (in terms of time and the number of skilled staff). In the wider whole school context disabled students and staff recieve equal opportunities during the application process and reasonable adjustments are made to ensure they can fully participate in the school community according to formal-internal policy made in line with the DDA and SENDA. I am not sure how or if this is regulated, but should be part of everyday practice.
What incentive is there for institutions to invest in the skills and knowledge required to make e-learning accessible?
According to Seale, the main incentive for aquiring accessibility is financial as it puts them ahead of thier competitors. Developing a reputation for inclusion and accessibility can be a major selling point into the niche market of disabled students, particularly in the business of distance learning. However, it would seem that some universities have chosen to compete for different markets such as international students, commercialisation or research grants.
Other motivating factors include avoiding bad press through reports which name and shame bad practice and avoiding legal action by disadvantaged students/staff.
In a secondary education context the financial incentive for accessibility is less of a factor than in HE as competition for students is less of an issue. This is discussed further in my previous post.
Seal Chapter 11 - Notes
Do you think that there are any incentives for your organisation to develop or improve the accessibility of its online resources? If so, what are they?
Laid out in Seale Chapter 11 'Institutional Responses to Accessibility', the main incentives for HE institutions and training companies seems to be a financial one. Targeting the niche market of disabled students and attempting to win their business as a result of accessible practices. Unfortunately this incentive does not necessarily apply in my secondary education context at the current time. Firstly, the school already has a unique selling point (USP) in that it is a City Academy housed in a brand new building with ICT facilities that are outstanding in the local area. However, as the government continues to promote the City Academies programme, and other schools in the local area become converted and gain corporate sponsorship it may not be able to rely on this USP in the medium to long term.
Think back to before you started this course. Are there any assumptions you had then about whether and how to make online resources accessible? (For example, ideas about what ‘rules’ you should follow.) Have these assumptions or rules changed as a result of studying on the course? If so, why and how?
I had already done some research into the W3C WAI WCAG before starting the course so I had got a bit of an idea of some of the technical aspects of web content accessibility and some of the problems disabled people may encounter when using online content. My assumptions before the course were that the WCAG gave an all round picture of accessibility issues and that the validation tools gave a suitable indication regarding this. The main change to my assumptions has been the need for understanding of the issues and human intervention/testing to achieve accessible content.
Thinking about your organisation – can you identify people who make, enforce, advocate or implement ‘rules’ that apply to accessibility? (You may prefer to refer to roles rather than individuals.)
Senior Management Team (Enforce/Implementation), Head of Social Inclusion (Advocate), Director of ICT and ICT Support Staff inc. Web & ELearning Developer (Enforce, Implementation, Advocate)
In your context, are there any internal politics regarding accessibility? If so, what feeds the political debates: Values/principles? Costs/resources? Attitudes/beliefs? Culture/tradition?
None that I am aware of.
Laid out in Seale Chapter 11 'Institutional Responses to Accessibility', the main incentives for HE institutions and training companies seems to be a financial one. Targeting the niche market of disabled students and attempting to win their business as a result of accessible practices. Unfortunately this incentive does not necessarily apply in my secondary education context at the current time. Firstly, the school already has a unique selling point (USP) in that it is a City Academy housed in a brand new building with ICT facilities that are outstanding in the local area. However, as the government continues to promote the City Academies programme, and other schools in the local area become converted and gain corporate sponsorship it may not be able to rely on this USP in the medium to long term.
Think back to before you started this course. Are there any assumptions you had then about whether and how to make online resources accessible? (For example, ideas about what ‘rules’ you should follow.) Have these assumptions or rules changed as a result of studying on the course? If so, why and how?
I had already done some research into the W3C WAI WCAG before starting the course so I had got a bit of an idea of some of the technical aspects of web content accessibility and some of the problems disabled people may encounter when using online content. My assumptions before the course were that the WCAG gave an all round picture of accessibility issues and that the validation tools gave a suitable indication regarding this. The main change to my assumptions has been the need for understanding of the issues and human intervention/testing to achieve accessible content.
Thinking about your organisation – can you identify people who make, enforce, advocate or implement ‘rules’ that apply to accessibility? (You may prefer to refer to roles rather than individuals.)
Senior Management Team (Enforce/Implementation), Head of Social Inclusion (Advocate), Director of ICT and ICT Support Staff inc. Web & ELearning Developer (Enforce, Implementation, Advocate)
In your context, are there any internal politics regarding accessibility? If so, what feeds the political debates: Values/principles? Costs/resources? Attitudes/beliefs? Culture/tradition?
None that I am aware of.