This year I am delighted to be acting as a consultant for the Open University helping them to develop a new Masters unit called "Accessible online learning: supporting disabled students". See their website here for more details: http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01H810.
The unit will be offered as part of the Masters in Online and Distance Education and is divided into three main parts. The first part of the course is concerned with the learning experiences of students with disabilities. The second part of the course is concerned with the more technical aspects of accessibility. The final part of the course is concerned with current debates and discussions about disability and accessibility in educational contexts.
I am particularly excited that my 2006 book "E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice" will be a core text for the course. Simon Ball from TechDis is also working with the OU Team to integrate TechDis staff development materials into the course.
Saturday, 22 March 2008
Using Participatory Research Methods to Explore the E-learning Experiences of Disabled Students
I am currently involved in a JISC funded project called LEXDIS which aims to explore the e-learning experiences of disabled students in higher education. At the heart of the project is the use of participatory research methods in order to give real "voice" to disabled students and their experiences. I have defined participatory methods in another blog, but the underlying principle is the development of collaborative relationships with research participants, in this case disabled students in higher education.
In a talk that I gave to the Higher Education Research Group at the University of Southampton I provided an overview of the participatory methods and used examples from phase one of the project to illuminate the challenges that arise from undertaking participatory research. Slides available here. In phase 1 of LEXDIS, participatory methods involved consulting with disabled students and seeking their advise on two key aspects: 1) the importance/relevance of our proposed research questions and how well they were phrased or understood 2) preferences for (appropriateness of) the different media or methods that students might be asked to use to record their e-learning experiences in phase 2 of the project. In the talk I highlighted six issues for discussion:
In a talk that I gave to the Higher Education Research Group at the University of Southampton I provided an overview of the participatory methods and used examples from phase one of the project to illuminate the challenges that arise from undertaking participatory research. Slides available here. In phase 1 of LEXDIS, participatory methods involved consulting with disabled students and seeking their advise on two key aspects: 1) the importance/relevance of our proposed research questions and how well they were phrased or understood 2) preferences for (appropriateness of) the different media or methods that students might be asked to use to record their e-learning experiences in phase 2 of the project. In the talk I highlighted six issues for discussion:
- Understanding and meanings
- Motivations for participation
- Rewards for participation
- Recruitment
- Gate-keepers
- The nature of participation
The conclusion of the talk was that whilst the participants had not initiated the research and were not acting as researchers they were playing an important role in the research in terms of acting as consultants and joint decision-makers. The students were helping to ensure that the research topics and questions were worthy of investigation.
The ideas and issues discussed in this talk have been expanded in a paper which has recently been accepted (subject to amendments) in the Journal of Assistive Technologies. The paper is entitled: "Exploring the technology experiences of disabled learners in higher education: challenges for the use and development of participatory research methods" and it focuses on 3 main challenges to using participatory methods: informed participation; valued participation and empowered participation. The conclusion of the paper is that whilst the principles of participatory research are worthy, the use of participatory methods can reveal certain tensions that need careful managing and that the management of such tensions and potential conflicting pressures, may require “pragmatic compromises”.
Dissemination activities for the LEXDIS project are wide and varied, but look out for us at EdMedia 2008 in Vienna (paper accepted) and ALT-C in Leeds (subject to paper acceptance).
Digital Inclusion in Higher Education: Half the story
On Tuesday 11th March I attended the Sir James Mathews lecture at the University of Southampton. This is an annual lecture, organised by the School of Education and this year the guest speaker was Sheila Riddell from Edinburgh University. Sheila has undertaken a range of studies exploring the experiences of disabled students in higher education and her work has been influential in terms of underpinning the developmentof inclusive teaching in higher education. See her home page here.
In her talk Sheila charted the progress of inclusion in a range of educational sectors and outlined some challenges that still need to be addressed. When she discussed Higher Education, she argued that most if not all the work has been focused on supporting disabled learners once they have gained access to university and that compararively little was being done to encourage and support disabled learners to gain access to universities. This had real resonance for me in terms of digital inclusion.
Thinking of the role of technologies and e-learning in higher education, much of the rhetoric around inclusion has focused on disabled learners who are already accessing or participating in higher education but who are at risk of being excluded from certain learning experiences due to the way learning technology (e-learning) is used or designed. I am unaware of any examples where a university or college has deliberately and proactively sought to use technology to enable disabled learners to access higher education who otherwise might not have done so. Can you think of any examples in higher education where technology has been at the heart of the design of a new programme, course, activity or opportunity aimed specifically at benefiting disabled learners and/or attracting them into higher education?
My concern is that if we are not able to find such examples or develop our own examples then all the talk of technology being a powerful tool for inclusion is pretty hollow. The discourse around the development of accessible e-learning and use of assistive technologies is essentially a discourse focused on avoiding exclusion rather than promoting inclusion and I think we need to change this.
In her talk Sheila charted the progress of inclusion in a range of educational sectors and outlined some challenges that still need to be addressed. When she discussed Higher Education, she argued that most if not all the work has been focused on supporting disabled learners once they have gained access to university and that compararively little was being done to encourage and support disabled learners to gain access to universities. This had real resonance for me in terms of digital inclusion.
Thinking of the role of technologies and e-learning in higher education, much of the rhetoric around inclusion has focused on disabled learners who are already accessing or participating in higher education but who are at risk of being excluded from certain learning experiences due to the way learning technology (e-learning) is used or designed. I am unaware of any examples where a university or college has deliberately and proactively sought to use technology to enable disabled learners to access higher education who otherwise might not have done so. Can you think of any examples in higher education where technology has been at the heart of the design of a new programme, course, activity or opportunity aimed specifically at benefiting disabled learners and/or attracting them into higher education?
My concern is that if we are not able to find such examples or develop our own examples then all the talk of technology being a powerful tool for inclusion is pretty hollow. The discourse around the development of accessible e-learning and use of assistive technologies is essentially a discourse focused on avoiding exclusion rather than promoting inclusion and I think we need to change this.
Understanding e-inclusion in the context of disabled learners in Higher Education
On March 6th I gave a seminar for Kings College, London entitled: "Understanding e-inclusion in the context of disabled learners in Higher Education" Slides available here. The seminar is part of an e-inclusion seminar series organised by Chris Abbott designed to underpin the setting up of a new Masters in E-Inclusion, due to start in September. The main objectives of my talk were to:
•Examine different perceptions of inclusion use these to identify and critique common conceptions of e-inclusion (inclusive e-learning)
•Use early results from a current research project (LEXDIS) to present case studies of disabled university students and use these to illustrate and discuss the complex relationship between disabled learners, technologies and their educational experiences
•Discuss implications for developing and strengthening our theorisation of e-inclusion in higher education contexts.
Understanding Inclusive E-Learning
Definitions and conceptualisations of inclusive e-learning tend to be pretty loose and vague in the Higher Education research literature. However the associated discourse has been largely influenced by discourses and arguments surrounding web accessibility, "Digital Divide", social exclusion and barriers to learning. Whilst these discourses have certainly influenced practice and raised awareness, they have tended to simplify matters: Learners either have access or they don't; something is accessible or it is not; a learners is excluded or included. Inclusive e-learning is more complex than these binary or dichotomous relationships suggest. For this reason, I am increasingly drawn to the arguments of Neil Selwyn who talks about the digital divide being not solely about access to technology but about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. He argues that some people are making digital decisions – whether to use technology or not – even though access is available to them. In effect, they are making empowered choices. Neil's work is mainly in the school and adult community learning sector and I have been keen to explore the applicability of his ideas to Higher Education- particularly the idea that disabled learners are making Digital Decisions.
Digital Decisions
Using a prelimary analysis of case studies from the LEXDIS I explored in my talk the extent to which the participants in the study were making empowered choices- digital decisions. The digital decisions that the LEXDIS participants appeared to be making fell into three main categories:
1. Shall I use technology at all, if so what for?
2. Which technologies shall I use?
–Choosing between different kinds of assistive technologies
–Choosing between technologies for learning and technologies for socialising or playing
3.Is the time it takes to learn to use Assistive Technologies going to save me time in the long run
–Investing time in the sort term to save time in the long term?
Digital Agility
These digital decisions appear to be underpinned by what could be called digital agility. The majority of the participants in the study were confident and competent technology users, who have been using technology for many years at home, at work and at "schoool". Their digital agility means that they were able to develop successful strategies for using technology to support their learning needs; they were willing to take risks and try new things out or problem-solve when things didn't work but resilient enough that if the testing and experimentation did not prove immediately beneficial, it was not taken as a major set-back.
Complex Relationships
Despite the evidence for digital agility, early results from LEXDIS suggest that disabled learners have quite a complex relationship with technologies. Whilst many felt that technology added value to some aspects of their learning experience, they also felt that it "took" away value in other areas. Some participants felt it important to stress that while technology had a role to play in their learning or their lives, it was not as important as the role played by people. Others acknowledged that technology played an important role, but still maintained that they could cope without technology. Finally some learners expressed a desire to use technology, but also a reluctance to seek to make this happen.
Implications for theorising about e-inclusion
•Examine different perceptions of inclusion use these to identify and critique common conceptions of e-inclusion (inclusive e-learning)
•Use early results from a current research project (LEXDIS) to present case studies of disabled university students and use these to illustrate and discuss the complex relationship between disabled learners, technologies and their educational experiences
•Discuss implications for developing and strengthening our theorisation of e-inclusion in higher education contexts.
Understanding Inclusive E-Learning
Definitions and conceptualisations of inclusive e-learning tend to be pretty loose and vague in the Higher Education research literature. However the associated discourse has been largely influenced by discourses and arguments surrounding web accessibility, "Digital Divide", social exclusion and barriers to learning. Whilst these discourses have certainly influenced practice and raised awareness, they have tended to simplify matters: Learners either have access or they don't; something is accessible or it is not; a learners is excluded or included. Inclusive e-learning is more complex than these binary or dichotomous relationships suggest. For this reason, I am increasingly drawn to the arguments of Neil Selwyn who talks about the digital divide being not solely about access to technology but about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. He argues that some people are making digital decisions – whether to use technology or not – even though access is available to them. In effect, they are making empowered choices. Neil's work is mainly in the school and adult community learning sector and I have been keen to explore the applicability of his ideas to Higher Education- particularly the idea that disabled learners are making Digital Decisions.
Digital Decisions
Using a prelimary analysis of case studies from the LEXDIS I explored in my talk the extent to which the participants in the study were making empowered choices- digital decisions. The digital decisions that the LEXDIS participants appeared to be making fell into three main categories:
1. Shall I use technology at all, if so what for?
2. Which technologies shall I use?
–Choosing between different kinds of assistive technologies
–Choosing between technologies for learning and technologies for socialising or playing
3.Is the time it takes to learn to use Assistive Technologies going to save me time in the long run
–Investing time in the sort term to save time in the long term?
Digital Agility
These digital decisions appear to be underpinned by what could be called digital agility. The majority of the participants in the study were confident and competent technology users, who have been using technology for many years at home, at work and at "schoool". Their digital agility means that they were able to develop successful strategies for using technology to support their learning needs; they were willing to take risks and try new things out or problem-solve when things didn't work but resilient enough that if the testing and experimentation did not prove immediately beneficial, it was not taken as a major set-back.
Complex Relationships
Despite the evidence for digital agility, early results from LEXDIS suggest that disabled learners have quite a complex relationship with technologies. Whilst many felt that technology added value to some aspects of their learning experience, they also felt that it "took" away value in other areas. Some participants felt it important to stress that while technology had a role to play in their learning or their lives, it was not as important as the role played by people. Others acknowledged that technology played an important role, but still maintained that they could cope without technology. Finally some learners expressed a desire to use technology, but also a reluctance to seek to make this happen.
Implications for theorising about e-inclusion
I concluded my talk by arguing that it would probably be helpful for us to move away from understanding e-inclusion solely in terms of access and barriers, because this only explains the relationship disabled learners have with people and systems who install or remove barriers. We need theories and concepts that can handle the observed complexities and i) explain relationships disabled learners have with people, systems AND technology ii) expand our understanding of digital decisions and relationships to digital agility. For me, a key aspect of developing a theorisation of e-inclusion in the context of higher education is the exploration of concepts of resilience and risk taking.
A footnote: technology use emphasises our humanity not our differences
On 7th March, I met up with Martyn Cooper from the Open University to discuss a paper we are working on. He was telling me about a book proposal he is working on. The central premise of the book is that the manufacture and use of technology (tools) is often set forward as a defining characteristic of humanity. So the fact that some people use additional or different tools to achieve various tasks, overcoming the impact of their disabilities, should emphasise their humanity, not mark them out as different. This struck me as immensely relevant to the LEXDIS project. I had been slightly puzzled by the complex and contradictory statements that some participants had made about the role of technology in their lives. They would talk about loving technology, how not having it would be like losing an arm, but in the same breath talk about how technology slowed them down in some respects and how they would live or cope without technology if they didn't have it. I wonder if what some of the participants were trying to articulate is the sense that they did not want their technology use to mark them out as different. As some participants said, technology is just a tool- one of many tools that we as humans use in our everyday lives. Whilst technology use might define humans collectively, it doesn't define us individually in terms identity and how we see ourselves as learners.
Monday, 21 January 2008
Participatory approaches to inclusion related staff development
On January 22nd I gave a talk at a "good practice lunch" organised by the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit at the University of Southampton. See Link to Slides
The purpose of my talk was to give an overview of a university funded learning and teaching development Project that I have been working on for the past year. The aims of the project called PAIRS (Participatory Approaches to Inclusion Related Staff Development) are to:
- Capture “student voices” regarding their learning experiences within the School of Education: Use these “voices” to explore whether and how our School of Education programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate) include or exclude students with a wide range of learning needs from experiencing positive or high quality learning opportunities.
- Involve students in the analysis and exploration of these “student voices”: Develop a collaborative partnership whereby students help to develop materials and methods that can be used to help staff in the work towards meeting learning needs and reducing barriers to inclusion.
The motivation for the project was derived from the University Disability Equality Scheme in which one action listed in the plan was to: involve students in the design and delivery of staff development and CPD opportunities in relation to developing inclusive teaching practices .
The underlying principles for involving students as users/evaluators in this project have their origins in two related fields: Participatory Design (Boyd-Graber et al 2006; Davies et al. 2004;Newell et al. 2007; Seale et al. 2002) and Participatory Research (Burke et al. 2003; French & Swain 2004; Gilbert, 2004). Drawing from these fields, for the purposes of this project, I have defined student participation as reflecting the principle of "Nothing About Me, Without Me" and involving:
- Working directly with students in the evaluation of their learning experiences and development of staff development materials;
- Seeking student input throughout the evaluation project;
- Early and continual participation of intended users (students) to produce improved teaching practices;
- Engaging participants in the design, conduct and analysis of “research” with the construction of non-hierarchical research relations;
- Encouraging participants to own the outcome by setting the goals and sharing in decisions about processes.
In addition, the methods used in the PAIRS project are influenced in part by the methods used in the ESCALATE funded "Hearing the student voice" project.
For the PAIRS project, there were two different types or phases of participation. In Phase One the students were asked to contribute descriptions of their learning experiences and how their learning needs had/or had not been met. Students were able to choose the method or media for their contributions, which included:
- Write or audio-record a one-two page letter to an “imaginary” friend
- Write a diary describing learning experiences on course, over the period of a “typical” week;
- Write a reflective journal that describes a “critical incident”
- Produce a piece of creative writing or art (e.g. poem, picture, sculpture, song)
- Alternatively, opt to be interviewed face-to-face, by phone or by webcam
In Phase two students formed an advisory group that worked together to decide how we will use the information about student learning experiences to design staff development initiatives in the School. Some preliminary data from the project is outlined in the Online Slides
My initial reflections on the relative success of the project in encouraging meaningful participation by students are:
- Some students were motivated to take part because they had a "bee in their bonnet" about particular issues (good and bad)
- Some students were motivated to take part because they were curious about the methods and wanted to learn more about them, sometimes with a view to using them in their own research or practice
- Some students were motivated to take part because they wanted to have a "voice".
The project was participatory in that students could choose the methods by which they contributed their voice and their experiences ( and this has similarities to the methods being used by two of the current NCRM Nodes in their research activities: Qualti and Real Life Methods) and advise on how to disseminate the information gained on the project to teaching staff. These are two standard practices in participatory research.
The students were also asked to help analyse the data obtained from phase one. This is a less standard practice. Involving users in data analysis is extremely rare and considered quite difficult to do (Richardson, 2000). Certainly in this PAIRS project, the success was limited. This is essentially because little effort was put into helping the students learn how to code and interpret reams of qualitative data (which is the task they were asked to do). Some students coped very well with this minimal guidance, others struggled. The result was that I as project facilitator found myself conducting a meta-analyses of the students analyses in order to try and synthesise findings for students and suggest a way forward in terms of coming to a consensus about what the important findings were. In hindsight, there is a signficant chance that I may have steered the students in a particular direction and that my greater expertise introduced an imbalance into the relationship between myself and the participants, that violated in part the principles of participatory research.
My conclusion then is that the methods used in PAIRS were generally successful in revealing useful, rich and in-depth information about the student learning experience. They are time-consuming and require more commitment on the part of the evaluator in terms of communicating and working with participants. More effort needs to be put into developing successful methods for helping participants gain the skills required to engage in the analysis stages of research and evaluation projects.
I would welcome your comments on the applicability and value of the methods used in this project to your own inclusion related activities.
REFERENCES
Boyd-Graber et al (2006) Participatory Design with proxies: developing a Desktop PDA system to support people with Aphasia. In proceedings of CHI 2006, Montreal Canada.
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~kmoffatt/boyd-graber-2006-chi.pdf
Burke, A et al. (2003) Setting up participatory research: a discussion of the initial stages, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 65-69
Davies, R., Marcella, S., McGrenere, J., Purves, B. (2004). The ethnographically informed participatory design of a PDA application to support communication. Proceedings of ACM ASSETS 2004, 153-160 http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~joanna/papers/ASSETS2004_Davies.pdf
French, S. & Swain, J. (2004), "Researching Together: A Participatory Approach," in Physiotherapy: A Psychosocial Approach, 3rd edn, S. French & J. Sim, eds., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Gilbert, T (2004) Involving people with learning disability in research: issues and possibilities, Health and Social Care in the Community,12,4, 298-308
Newell, A et al. (2007) Methodologies for involving older adults in the design process. In proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Universal Access in HCI: http://www.springerlink.com/content/53t5026735v65721/fulltext.pdf
Richardson, m (2000) How we live: participatory research with six people with learning difficulties Journal of Advanced Nursing 32 (6), 1383–1395.
Seale, J., McCreadie, C., Turner-Smith, A and Tinker, A (2002) Older People as Partners in Assistive Technology Research: The use of focus groups in the design process. Technology and Disability, 14,1,21-29
Friday, 28 December 2007
Reflections on 2007
My teaching and research interests lie at the intersections between disability, technology and education and in 2007 there have been exciting developments for me in each of these fields- developments that I am hoping will bear some "juicy fruits "in 2008.
Disability and Technology: For 20 years I have been researching the role of computers and assistive technologies in promoting independence, identity and quality of life for adults with disabilities. I have developed a national and International profile in the field through key roles and activities including co-ordinating of the first ever Masters programme in Assistive Technology in the UK, (2000-2002), In 2007 I became an editorial board member of a new journal
called "Journal of Assistive Technologies": Published by Pavilion and edited by Chris Abbott, the peer-reviewed journal is different in that it is aimed primarily at practitioners and has a strong user-focus. In the first issue, an article that was of particualr relevance to my own research was: "Multimedia learning and the Internet: ensuring accessibility for people with learning disabilities", written by Peter Zentel, Maria Opfermann and Jan Krewinkel. Take a look at the journal website, and let me know what you think of the contents so far. Also, if you would like to contribute an article, please feel free to contact either myself or the editor: http://pavilionjournals.metapress.com/content/121393
Technology and Education: For the past ten years I have researched the role of e-learning and technology in higher education- with a particular emphasis on implementation in health care courses and promoting reflection and resource-based learning. For six years I edited the Association for Learning Technology Journal. My last issue will be the March 2008 issue. I have learnt a lot from editing the works of others as new trends and developments have been developed, implemented and evaluated. A key development in the UK which is still having a huge infleunce on higher education instiutions is that of institutional repositories. In 2007, I became a co-investigator of an ESRC funded project called ReStore, which aims to build a protopype of a service for sustaining online resources in the field of research methods. In some ways it will be similar to a digital repository in that the authors and creators of ESRC funded research methods related "resources" will have an opportunity to deposit these resources into a repository that will maintain and in some cases update the resources over time. Whilst there are obvious intellectual property rights and copyright issues to address and learn from in this project, what interests me in particular about this project are the potential similarities and differences between other teaching and learning related reposotories and this research related respository in terms of the sense of community and ownership that may or may not develop and the resulting value placed on the resources contained within the repository. Here is the URL for the project, If you work within the Social Sciences, I would be interested to hear your views about the value of such a project for the research community:
http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/research/other/restore/
Education and Disability: I teach on a range of programmes including the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice and the Masters in Educational Practice and Innovation where I specialise in issues relating to inclusion. Currently I am Chair of the University of Southampton Inclusion Forum. In this role I am trying to lead the development of participatory evaluation and research methods within the university. In doing so, I am drawing heavily on my experiences as a co-investigator of an ESRC funded seminar series, which aimed to explore shared concepts of “access” for people with learning disabilities. In this project we brought together people with learning disabilities, practitioners and researchers and using participatory methods and approaches, we tried to answer six key questions:
1. What kind of access do people with learning disabilities want?
2. What is involved in getting access?
3. How and why is access denied?
4. How and why is access achieved?
5. Who should be helping access to happen?
6. How do we improve access in the future?
Our accessible summary report, plus notes and presentations from each of the six seminars will soon be made available from our project website. If you work with children or adults with learning disabilities I would be interested to hear how similar or different your experiences are to those stories and experiences that were shared within our seminars.
Disability, Technology and Education: In the last few years, I have developed a strong profile in the field of e-learning and accessibility. My 2006 book “E-learning and disability in Higher Education: Accessibility research and practice” is in over 300 libraries world-wide. In 2008, this book will become a core text for a new Open University Masters Unit called "Accessibility, and supporting students with disabilities in E-Learning".
I am looking forward to working with the course team in order to link the theory to the practice in a meaningful way for those students who opt to study the unit.
In 2007 I also became a co-investigator of a JISC funded project called LEXDIS, which is aims to explore the e-learning experiences of students with disabilities. I am really excited about this project, because it is trying to a give a "voice" to disabled students in higher education, by working with disabled students to create 30 detailed case studies of how they use technology to support their learning and the impact that technology has on their learning experiences: http://www.lexdis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.htm. I am learning so much from the project about the challenges of conducting participatory research. It is also a pleasure to work with my co-investigators, E.A Draffan and Mike Wald. Anyone who knows E.A, knows that she is a human dynamo. One of her many achievements is the Emptech database: http://www.emptech.info/, which provides information resources on assistive technologies that are designed to help those with specific difficulties or disabilities work and study more effectively. LEXDIS will complete its work in the summer of 2008, so watch this space for updates on our findings as well as details of our dissemination activities. We hope to be presenting at Ed-Media and ALT-C; if you have similar interests it would be great to meet you at these events and share thoughts and experiences.
Well those are my personal highlights of 2007, my new years resolution is to maintain and develop this blog- If you have similar interests in disability, technology and education I hope you will visit my blog from time to time and join me in my thoughts and reflections.
Disability and Technology: For 20 years I have been researching the role of computers and assistive technologies in promoting independence, identity and quality of life for adults with disabilities. I have developed a national and International profile in the field through key roles and activities including co-ordinating of the first ever Masters programme in Assistive Technology in the UK, (2000-2002), In 2007 I became an editorial board member of a new journal
called "Journal of Assistive Technologies": Published by Pavilion and edited by Chris Abbott, the peer-reviewed journal is different in that it is aimed primarily at practitioners and has a strong user-focus. In the first issue, an article that was of particualr relevance to my own research was: "Multimedia learning and the Internet: ensuring accessibility for people with learning disabilities", written by Peter Zentel, Maria Opfermann and Jan Krewinkel. Take a look at the journal website, and let me know what you think of the contents so far. Also, if you would like to contribute an article, please feel free to contact either myself or the editor: http://pavilionjournals.metapress.com/content/121393Technology and Education: For the past ten years I have researched the role of e-learning and technology in higher education- with a particular emphasis on implementation in health care courses and promoting reflection and resource-based learning. For six years I edited the Association for Learning Technology Journal. My last issue will be the March 2008 issue. I have learnt a lot from editing the works of others as new trends and developments have been developed, implemented and evaluated. A key development in the UK which is still having a huge infleunce on higher education instiutions is that of institutional repositories. In 2007, I became a co-investigator of an ESRC funded project called ReStore, which aims to build a protopype of a service for sustaining online resources in the field of research methods. In some ways it will be similar to a digital repository in that the authors and creators of ESRC funded research methods related "resources" will have an opportunity to deposit these resources into a repository that will maintain and in some cases update the resources over time. Whilst there are obvious intellectual property rights and copyright issues to address and learn from in this project, what interests me in particular about this project are the potential similarities and differences between other teaching and learning related reposotories and this research related respository in terms of the sense of community and ownership that may or may not develop and the resulting value placed on the resources contained within the repository. Here is the URL for the project, If you work within the Social Sciences, I would be interested to hear your views about the value of such a project for the research community:
http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/research/other/restore/
Education and Disability: I teach on a range of programmes including the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice and the Masters in Educational Practice and Innovation where I specialise in issues relating to inclusion. Currently I am Chair of the University of Southampton Inclusion Forum. In this role I am trying to lead the development of participatory evaluation and research methods within the university. In doing so, I am drawing heavily on my experiences as a co-investigator of an ESRC funded seminar series, which aimed to explore shared concepts of “access” for people with learning disabilities. In this project we brought together people with learning disabilities, practitioners and researchers and using participatory methods and approaches, we tried to answer six key questions:
1. What kind of access do people with learning disabilities want?
2. What is involved in getting access?
3. How and why is access denied?
4. How and why is access achieved?
5. Who should be helping access to happen?
6. How do we improve access in the future?
Our accessible summary report, plus notes and presentations from each of the six seminars will soon be made available from our project website. If you work with children or adults with learning disabilities I would be interested to hear how similar or different your experiences are to those stories and experiences that were shared within our seminars.
Disability, Technology and Education: In the last few years, I have developed a strong profile in the field of e-learning and accessibility. My 2006 book “E-learning and disability in Higher Education: Accessibility research and practice” is in over 300 libraries world-wide. In 2008, this book will become a core text for a new Open University Masters Unit called "Accessibility, and supporting students with disabilities in E-Learning".
I am looking forward to working with the course team in order to link the theory to the practice in a meaningful way for those students who opt to study the unit.
In 2007 I also became a co-investigator of a JISC funded project called LEXDIS, which is aims to explore the e-learning experiences of students with disabilities. I am really excited about this project, because it is trying to a give a "voice" to disabled students in higher education, by working with disabled students to create 30 detailed case studies of how they use technology to support their learning and the impact that technology has on their learning experiences: http://www.lexdis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.htm. I am learning so much from the project about the challenges of conducting participatory research. It is also a pleasure to work with my co-investigators, E.A Draffan and Mike Wald. Anyone who knows E.A, knows that she is a human dynamo. One of her many achievements is the Emptech database: http://www.emptech.info/, which provides information resources on assistive technologies that are designed to help those with specific difficulties or disabilities work and study more effectively. LEXDIS will complete its work in the summer of 2008, so watch this space for updates on our findings as well as details of our dissemination activities. We hope to be presenting at Ed-Media and ALT-C; if you have similar interests it would be great to meet you at these events and share thoughts and experiences.
Well those are my personal highlights of 2007, my new years resolution is to maintain and develop this blog- If you have similar interests in disability, technology and education I hope you will visit my blog from time to time and join me in my thoughts and reflections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
