Learning platform
Encyclopedia
A learning platform is an integrated set of interactive online services that provide teachers, learners, parents and others involved in education with information, tools and resources to support and enhance educational delivery and management.
The term learning platform refers to a range of tools and services often described using terms such as educational extranet, VLE
, LMS
, ILMS and LCMS providing learning and content management. The term learning platform also includes the personal learning environment
(PLE) or personal online learning space (POLS), including tools and systems that allow the development and management of eportfolios.
The specific functionality associated with any implementation of a learning platform will vary depending upon the needs of the users and can be achieved by bringing together a range of features from different software solutions either commercially available, open source, self built or available as free to use web services. These tools are delivered together via a cohesive user environment with a single entry point, through integration achieved by technical standards.
• Content management – creation, storage, access to and use of learning resources
• Curriculum mapping and planning – lesson planning, assessment and personalisation of the learning experience
• Learner engagement and administration – managed access to learner information and resources and tracking of progress and achievement
• Communication and collaboration - emails, notices, chat, wikis, blogs
In principle a learning platform is a safe and secure environment that is reliable, available online and accessible to a wide user base. A user should be able to move between learning platforms throughout their life with no loss of access to their personal data.
The concept of a learning platform accommodates a continuously evolving description of functionality changing to meet the needs of the user. Becta publishes Functional Requirements and Technical Specifications that give a more precise description of how a learning platform may be constructed.
Description from Becta
A learning platform is a framework of tools that work seamlessly together to deliver a student centric learning experience by unifying educational theory & practice, technology and content. Learning platforms can be described as the next generation of Virtual Learning Environment
s or Learning Management System
s used by educational institutions. The major difference is that a VLE and LMS is an application, whereas the Learning Platform share characteristics with an Operating System
(or CoursePark Platform) where different educational web based applications can be run on the platform.
In 2005 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) announced that by the end of 2008 every primary and secondary school in England and Wales would have its own Learning Platform. The term Learning Platform is a generic one used to describe a range of integrated web based applications that have also been referred to as Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) and Managed Virtual Learning Environments (MVLEs). Throughout this article the terms Learning Platform and VLE are used in an inter-changeable way.
The applications that form part of these online services can include web pages, email, message boards and discussion forums, text and video conferencing, shared diaries, online social areas, as well as assessment, management and tracking tools (JISC 2007).
Classroom teachers who completed New Opportunities Fund (NOF) training through a provider such as the Open University Learning Schools Programme will have used this technology, although the network communication aspect of that training was the part that received most criticism from those being trained (Leask 2002). Newly qualified teachers (NQTs) who graduated recently may have used a VLE at university (Gillespie, Boulton et al. 2007).
In 1997 13% of universities in the UK had their own VLE, this figure rising to 81% by 2002 (Timmis 2004). An understanding of a VLE and the management of network communications are amongst the core skills required of NQTs (DfES 2007). Senior teachers who completed the National Professional Qualification for Headteachers (NPQH) at the National College for School Leaders (NCSL) will also have experience of a VLE, been involved in an online community of practice and may be acquainted with the work of Gilly Salmon (Salmon 2005), whose 5-stage-model of e-learning and e-moderating has been promoted through the NCSL talk2learn online community. Many classroom teachers however will have had little hands-on understanding of this technology.
In 2006 22% of junior schools and 50% of secondary schools in England and Wales claimed ownership of an online learning environment or VLE (BECTA 2006). These figures represent simple ownership of a fairly loosely defined technology and do not reflect the ways in which it was being applied.
In 2009 40% of primary schools and 79% of secondary schools were starting to use a learning platform. (BESA 2009)
The final Becta survey of schools in 2010 found that this had increased to 67% primary and 93% secondary had a learning platform. (BECTA 2010)
From the mid 1990s onwards as interest in virtual communities (Abbott 2001) in higher education increases we begin to see the emergence of e-theories that build on these and other theories of learning. Wenger described communities of practice, developing what he and Lave had first written about in 1991, where learning is socially situated and mediated through a community and this theory has been adopted to explain interaction in an online community (Wenger 2007). Social constructivist theories, where the context in which learning occurs and the social contexts that learners bring to their learning, have in turn led to communal constructivist theories as a result of the growth of online learning communities. In a communal constructivist model students and teachers are not simply engaged in developing their own information but actively involved in creating knowledge that will benefit other students (Holmes, Tangney et al. 2001; Leask and Younie 2007). In trying to understand how students work collaboratively online Laurillard developed her conversational model for learning where the discussion between student and teacher, and the ways in which the teacher mediates learning (through course resources) is what leads to deep learning (Laurillard 2006). There are common threads linking together these theories of learning; community, collaboration and discussion.
Salmon (Salmon 2005) developed a five stage model of e-learning and e-moderating that for some time has had a major influence where online courses and online discussion forums have been used. In her five stage model individual access and the ability of students to use the technology are the first step to involvement and achievement. The second step involves students creating an identity online and finding others with whom to interact; online socialisation is a critical element of the e-learning process in this model. In step 3 students are giving and sharing information relevant to the course to each other. Collaborative interaction amongst students is central to step 4. The fifth step in Salmon’s model involves students looking for benefits from the system and using resources from outside of it to deepen their learning. Throughout all of this the tutor/teacher/lecturer fulfills the role of moderator or e-moderator, acting as a facilitator of student learning.
In the absence of any or many other theories and with the popularity of online environments, especially in higher education, Salmon’s model has proved influential, although some criticism is now beginning to emerge. Her model does not easily transfer to other contexts (she developed it with experience of an Open University distance learning course). It ignores the variety of learning approaches that are possible within computer mediated communication (CMC) and the range of learning theories that are available (Moule 2007). The role of the moderator/e-moderator is one that is disputed. For Garrison and Anderson the moderator is not a facilitator but, as in the face-to-face classroom, is the central figure in the learning experience of the student and the key to developing deep learning in online discussions (Garrison and Anderson 2003). Best practice has yet to emerge and a single best practice model may be unlikely given the range of teaching styles, the potential ways technology can be implemented and the ways in which that technology itself is changing (Meredith and Newton 2003).
In spite of this diversity, pedagogy within British schools has focused on content, rather than process (Cuthell). Awareness of other theories of learning has not prevented a behaviorist model of teaching and learning being the dominant paradigm in teacher-pupil interactions. For most of last century pedagogy has been instructional in nature (Cuban 1986); it’s how teachers were taught as pupils, it’s how they were taught to teach. It may be that the focus on exam results as a way of measuring school performance, means that a change in pedagogy or a willingness to experiment is unlikely (Green and Hannon 2007). There is support in the literature for the view that new technologies are transformational (Graves 2001; Garrison and Anderson 2002) and will move education from a traditional, behaviourist, subject-focused model towards a constructivist, student-centred one (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006). This chasm between learning theory and learning practice may be a barrier to the development of VLEs and discussion forums in the school classroom.
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) have been tasked with providing savings through encouraging schools to opt for an agreed central learning platform provider. In the Luton vision for the school of the future this will be used to promote collaborative synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning through video conferencing, discussion forum, email and video streaming etc. (LEA 2006).
Jones (Jones 2003) credits New Labour with the idea of the knowledge economy and yet when Blair referenced education, education, education in his Ruskin College speech in 1996, many national governments were already using just such an idea to justify investment in technology in education (Daanen and Facer 2007). The knowledge economy argument states that the old 19th century structures of organising labour and manufacturing are dead or dying. The new economy of the 21st century will be an economy where knowledge is capital. If national economies want to compete globally they need a labour force skilled in the new technologies. By inference, school structures are also outdated, linked to an old industrial model (Hargreaves 2003).
The red brick classroom of our parents age is from an age of manufacturing and its organisation reflects this – this is the new age of knowledge (Cox 1997). Schools have to change (Hargreaves 2003). This is a constant theme running through the government and BECTA literature and can also be found as justification for the use of discussion forums in schools (Laferriere, Bracewell et al. 2001; McLoughlin 2003). Constructivist, student-centred learning can better meet the demands of the contemporary workplace and society, which wants self-directedness, lifelong learning, communication and collaboration skills (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006). This belief is not research or evidence based and yet it fuels political and policy statements and almost seeks to be taken for granted as fact. Selwyn does not passively accept these statements and using many of the tools of critical discourse analysis he has deconstructed many political statements relating to technology:
Laurillard is equally vociferous about attempts to link school improvement to technology.
In 1997 the government sponsored Stevenson Report (Stevenson 1997) informed the education world that the state of IT in schools is primitive and not improving. Stevenson highlighted the use of email and said that every teacher and pupil should have their own. Communication, so Stevenson believed, would enrich learning and motivate pupils. Research for the report had been carried out by a private business, McKinsey & Company. McKinsey only cited one example of a girls grammar school in England as evidence for the impact that email and online communication might have on teaching and learning (Company 1997). This emphasis was re-enforced in the revised National Curriculum Orders (England and Wales) for 2000 in which the use of email and the Internet as a means of sharing and exchanging information were cited (LEA 2000).Delivering a policy speech at the BETT Education Computer Show in London in 2002, Estelle Morris, then Minister for Education, described an anywhere-anytime model of teaching and learning that could only be constructed through the use of Internet based communication technologies (BBC 2002). Her 14-19 Green Paper (2002) proposed, “Flexible access and delivery (of teaching and learning) through ICT and e-Learning” (FERL 2002). At this point e-learning was still centrist in nature, driven by content and teacher control and very much part of the school improvement debate. There was little research or evidence to confirm the utopian claims that were being made at a political level.
By 2003 a major change had occurred with the publication of Towards a Unified eLearning Strategy (DfES 2003), which defined e-learning in 5 ways – concurrent learning, cinematic learning, collaborative learning, communicative learning and consensual learning (Preston and Cuthell 2005). The strategy described collaborative learning through online environments and pupils developing cognitive and social skills of communicating and collaborating, the first time this kind of language begins to be used in policy documents. The use of a VLE was central to the success of this policy. At the same time Professor David Hargreaves, Chairman of BECTA, supported by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) and the DEMOS think tank (DEMOS 2007) opened up a debate within specialist trust schools with the publication of the pamphlet Education Epidemic : Transforming Secondary Schools (Hargreaves 2003). In this he placed a premium on teacher collaboration and the use of online technologies to create learning networks. Hargreaves speaks of a system where, in order to improve learning, knowledge must be shared between schools. Innovation networks are the answer. He compared this approach to the peer-to-peer networks that were developing on the Internet to allow music enthusiasts to share sound files (much of which, he failed to consider, was considered illegal). Innovation networks within education would allow teachers to share good practice in a similar way. He offers to teachers the ongoing dream of better teaching and learning through the use of technology and in that respect what he says is part of that constant theme of school improvement in the literature relating to the use of technology in education. In the same year ‘ICT and Pedagogy’ (Cox, Webb et al. 2003) from BECTA described briefly how technology could impact on pedagogy with online discussion and collaboration changing the relationship between teacher and taught. Clearly constructivism is in the air even if it is not mentioned by name. It’s difficult to gauge the impact that such publications have although in 2003 Hargreaves work was given centre stage at the SSAT National Conference (SSAT 2007) and in SSAT literature that was sent to schools. Every specialist school received copies of Hargreaves publications. 2003 marks a growing emphasis on online collaboration in the official literature and there is a distinct link between Hargreaves work at BECTA, the DfES and SSAT.
In 2003 BECTA also published a literature review on the use of MVLEs and VLEs in education and a consideration of the implications this technology had for schools in the UK. The literature was mainly further and higher education based with simple descriptive examples of its use. It clamed that online discussion could enhance learning, improve student technological skills and promote reflective thinking. The role of the e-moderator was seen as being central to the learning process in discussion forums. Three examples are given of such use in schools, but these are only described in very simple terms with few details of any impact on learning. In a Bristol specialist school forums were being used to create a community of practice for staff, but a visit to these forums in 2007 showed little evidence of regular use. It was suggested that the London Grid for Learning (LGfL) VLE offered possibilities for collaboration and interaction throughout the city, but again there were no clear examples of how this was being achieved. Three years later the LGfL would change its VLE. Material from Learning and Teaching Scotland (LT Scotland 2000) described a range of role playing and online activities carried out in the Virtual Oilspill and Versailles Experience projects. The main learning benefit cited by one of the teachers concerned was the high quality of debate in the asynchronous forums. There was no attempt to define quality or how this was assessed and it could just as easily have been related to a teacher observation of a one time event. By contrast, a subsequent exercise saw online discussions rapidly deteriorating into social chit-chat. LT Scotland claimed that the Versailles Experience project demonstrated that online learning, when based on textual computer conferencing, could ‘work well’ with school pupils, especially with the ‘disaffected’ and those who were ‘less confident’ (BECTA 2003). Again, there was no evidence presented to back up these claims or even to define what ‘worked well’ might mean. There is little consensus about such an impact on less motivated and less confident students, despite the fact that the potential for this is a recurring theme in government and BECTA literature. LT Scotland appeared to simply repeat the unsubstantiated language of the policy statements from its Westminster counterparts. The appendices in the BECTA report listed over 20 schools using VLE technology. By 2006 less than 10% were using their original product. The BECTA literature review did not include some of the school based research that was beginning to emerge by then, for example in the Mirandanet community. It did not attempt to synthesis or analyse the research from higher education. Observations from the UK school examples were based on how staff ‘felt’. The report included one example from VLE use in Singapore. Even by 2003 there were more detailed examples of school use available at an international level for the report to make use of (Barker 1999; Bain, Huss et al. 2000; Mioduser and Nachmias 2001; Angeli, Valanides et al. 2003). The report proffered no theory of learning or model of use that might best fit pedagogical practice in British schools.
In 2004 networked learning and collaboration continued to be promoted at BETT 2004 by Charles Clark, Secretary of State for Education (Teachernet 2004). In its review of Progress towards a Unified E-Learning Strategy the DfES sought the views of school leaders, teachers, ICT co-coordinators and network managers through an online questionnaire (DfES 2004). It received 430 responses, including grouped responses from bodies such as professional associations. With around 24000 state schools in England alone there are issues over how representative the survey is. Question 15 in the survey asked:
In your experience what are the most significant achievements of e-learning? 105(49%) respondents said flexible learning was the most significant achievement of e-Learning e.g. the learner can choose a convenient time to learn, rather than having to adapt to timetables. 65(30%) highlighted collaboration amongst learners e.g. chat rooms where discussion can provide peer group support and the opportunity to debate with other students (DfES 2004).
The key research findings in a BECTA literature review of ICT and Attainment in the same year were that in relation to teaching and learning with VLEs, teachers needed to learn skills to moderate online discussions and that more research was required (Cox, Abbott et al. 2004). The review conceded that computer mediated communication (CMC) had recently been a feature of research in English classrooms, but gave no indication of where in England this research had taken place and indeed the only reference given in the main body of the document is to research from Northern Ireland.
Experiences in Northern Ireland have suggested that valuable understandings and skills can be developed through the use of asynchronous communication, although the results were not supported by any standardised test scores (Cox, Abbott et al. 2004; p. 14).
The Clark and Heaney research referred to here has been dealt with elsewhere in this paper. The ‘holy grail’ of test scores is mentioned. As experiences in higher education were suggesting at the time, assessment of asynchronous discussions was an unresolved issue – assessment with standardised tests was not a suitable tool. The BECTA review recognised that managing CMC was a complex task for which training was required and that the use of CMC changed classroom practice, again providing little detail of this.
2005 saw many themes being brought together in the official literature. Harnessing Technology: Transforming Learning and Children's Services, (DfES 2005) talked about the changing nature of teacher-pupil relationship, learning beyond the classroom, peer collaboration, sharing ideas through online networks, developing specially-tailored online communication activities so that students feel able to participate more in discussion, a ‘children’s workforce able to access online training materials and to participate in web-based discussions with their peers’ (DfES 2005; p. 58). The use of the term workforce clearly demonstrates the ongoing obsession with the economy. This document represents a political vision, as opposed to one which is evidence or practice based. The clear message was that collaboration, discussion and online forums had great potential, if only they could be designed for learning. The Learning Platforms (DfES 2005; DfES 2005) literature of the same year re-enforces this. Both Primary and Secondary documents are sub-titled ‘Making IT Personal’, linking the use of technology into the wider government personalised learning/school improvement agenda (DfES 2007). The Primary School Document lays out reasons for adopting learning platform technology – it will raise pupil achievement and lesson teacher work burden.
The technology ‘adds a new dimension to lessons, which they (pupils) find refreshing and motivating’ (DfES 2005; p. 34). These statements were supported by two junior school case studies although these make little mention of asynchronous learning, apart from an example of email use by pupils (where pupil emails are checked by a member of staff before being sent via a proxy server so that pupil email addresses cannot be identified). There is little contextual analysis in the junior school case studies. Readers are told that:
So says a teacher quoted in the document and yet elsewhere readers are warned about the ‘danger that a learning platform can dictate methods of curriculum delivery through its underlying model of learning’ (DfES 2005; p. 26), with no attempt to clarify what that model might be. The use of language in the document can be emotive, for example the implication that not to adopt the technology means somehow that teachers will be viewed as not ‘modern’. This is not a politically neutral document and needs to be seen in the context of a centralising government policy.
The Secondary School learning platform document repeats much of the text and many of the claims from the junior school one, but also introduces yet again the link between skills in technology and employment. ‘Daily use of these tools in school will ensure that pupils are better equipped to cope and thrive as they move into the world of work’ (DfES 2005; p. 10) because learning platform technology is being used in industry (again with little evidence to support this). Similar case studies appear here, with the example of one school using discussion forums in A Level history, with teachers using the questions and answers as the basis for set coursework assignments. This is as good an example as any of Cuban’s observations that classroom/teacher use of technology merely replicates traditional classroom practices (Cuban 2001). The 2005 BECTA Review (BECTA 2005) simply stated that levels of VLE and MVLE use in schools was low, that there was potential for teachers to use these as professional communities of practice, but that there was no evidence of this emerging – and this at a time when the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) was heavily involved in promoting its online forums and the DfES Innovations Unit was hosting discussion forums on the NCSL talk2learn site.
By 2006 the BECTA Review made available data relating to the use of online learning environments in the school sector. 22% of primary schools had access to a learning platform and 24% of secondary schools; 14% of primary schools had a VLE and 38% of secondary schools (BECTA 2006). There is no definition in the report of the differences between the two or indeed of the ways in which schools perceive differences. The report claims that:
There is case study evidence of a growing sophistication in the use of VLEs in the schools sector, particularly at Key Stages 3 and 4. Examples include a live mentoring service, access to web-based resources matched to learning style, and VLEs that extend to other schools and, in one, case community outlets. However, these examples currently represent pockets of leading-edge practice (BECTA 2006; p. 32).
The reference cited for sophisticated use is an unpublished BECTA report and based on this it is difficult to substantiate these claims. The live mentoring service may have been that piloted by the SSAT and this is dealt with later in this paper.
In the same year BECTA commissioned the Open University report Educational Change and ICT (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006), which was an exploration of the implementation of strands 2 and 3 of the DfES e-learning strategy. Strand 2 related to integrated online support for pupils and strand 3 dealt with a collaborative approach to personalised learning, both of which utilised learning platform/discussion forum technology. 125 schools were surveyed using a web questionnaire (as well as 70 telephone interviews), 86% of whom were implementing a learning platform/VLE or MLE. These schools had to show evidence that they were moving towards the government’s e-strategy and were not typical of schools in general. If we accept that these are early adopters, of the 86% using this technology, the paper claimed that level of use varied considerably and was at best ‘patchy’. Evidence is quoted from one un-named local authority with 66 schools using a learning platform managed by a commercial supplier. There are 21,000 pupils registered on the system – no distinction is made between schools or key stage groups.
Discussions were moderated by the company and not by teachers or tutors, but there is no evidence of the ways in which they moderated discussions or assessed learning. There was no attempt to evaluate why religion and spirituality might lend themselves to online discussion in a way that other areas of the curriculum did not. This is an important area for research. Pask’s (Cybernetics 2007) learning strategies – serialist learners tackle a subject step by step (for example, Mathematics or Arithmetic); holistic learners explore subjects in a haphazard way until an overall framework emerges (for example, English Literature) – may provide some insight into which subject areas best lend themselves to an approach that involves discussion forums.
The Report provides one further example of forum use:
Again, there is little detail here, no examination of the role of the teacher and no indication of measurable outcomes, although the Report did provide one valuable insight into teaching practices and the praxis between theory, policy and practice.
This is hardly surprising. Research from across the border in Scotland had already suggested this (HMIE 2002; Condie, Munro et al. 2005). The use of technology to provide differentiated teaching and learning resources was one which had been a central theme in government literature since the 1990s.
It’s hard to predict anything, let alone the future (Cuban 1986) but 2007 continued with a rash of government and BECTA literature that crystal ball gazes into the next twenty years by repeating many of the existing themes and claims of the past ten years. The 2020 Vision Report (DfES 2007) described a knowledge-based economy and preparing pupils for this; it’s the collaborative, team skills that industry needs to compete in global markets and it’s ICTs that will enhance collaboration and creative learning. An Investigation of Personalised Learning Approaches used by Schools (DfES) (Sebba, Brown et al. 2007) said that teachers had to give up control, become more involved in discussion with pupils and use technology to facilitate collaboration with peers (in the same school and in other schools). How technology supports 14-19 Reform (BECTA(o) 2007) implied that the use of a Learning Platform by schools in the London Borough of Lewisham had significantly improved the 5 A-C grades in its schools. The BECTA Annual Review 2007 (BECTA(l) 2007) sees a return to rhetoric and utopian thinking. The opening page of the Report carries a quote from a Deputy Headteacher who has ‘noticed’ the benefits of technology in raising achievement, especially that of boys:
The use of computers in schools is linked once more to economic well being and global markets. It is claimed that only 20% of schools, ‘our best schools and colleges’, are using technology effectively so that it ‘transforms the experience of learners’ and that ‘every learner can benefit’ (BECTA 2007; p. 5). Simplistic use is made of a case study from a school in Northern Ireland where pupils created a multi-media tourist guide in collaboration with another school.
‘As part of this, pupils used online discussion tools within LearningNI, an online learning environment, to store and share documents, images, audio and video files that they had previously created.’(BECTA 2007; p. 24)
This is a misleading statement confusing the discussion tools with the collaboration tools available on the learning platform. There is one further statement about the use of learning platform technology in a named secondary school.
The Report ends with a quote from a Headteacher who explained to his staff that:
The new technology was the learning platform with its range of collaborative tools. There’s nothing like the threat of unemployment to focus the mind!
This literature moves from rhetoric to hectoring, with little use of research based evidence to back up the claims that are being made. Statements about the knowledge economy, equipping pupils with technological skills they can use in employment, individualised learning, collaborative learning, inclusive learning and a change in the nature of teaching have all been themes in the literature since 1997. The linking of technology to exam success or boys achievement says more about current concerns in education than specific results from the use of technology. Learning Platforms are now obviously the main technology that will transform schools, but there are few attempts to link collaboration to the communication tools on these platforms and when a link is made it gives a misleading impression of the capabilities of the technology. Fielding states that:
The 2007 literature attempts to give an impression of ‘what works’ with little independent evidence or research to back up its claims. When faced with this it falls back on simple claims that that ICT ‘must’ be responsible for improved boys achievement – it could not be down to other factors such as classroom teaching. Yet again it attempts to assess performance in end of unit tests when clearly this method of assessment is not best suited to measuring learning in a collaborative, constructivist online world of discussion forums and learning platforms. And just in case its audience remains unconvinced the prospect of unemployment is raised.
The most recent BECTA paper to be accessed was ‘Learning Networks in Practice’ in the BECTA Emerging Technologies for Learning series (BECTA 2007). The purpose of this series is to make practitioners aware of new technologies and to open up a debate – although quite where this debate will or should take place is unclear. The section in the paper dealing with learning networks is written by Stephen Downes, senior researcher at the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC 2007). Downes is a specialist in e-learning with expertise in Internet culture, new media and blogging. His background is in the philosophy of knowledge. Since 2005 he has published a number of articles on social networking and learning platforms. Due to their geography Canada and the United States have at least two decades of experience in the application of computer technology in distance learning. This may help to explain why research into the use of this technology with pupils in pre-16 education is in many respects more advanced than it appears in the UK, as models of distance learning have been introduced to the traditional classroom. With the growth of the virtual schools movement (Clark 2001; Hassel and Terrell 2004; Berge and Clark 2005) in the United States; an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 K-12 students enrolling in an online course in 2001-2002 (Clark 2001); and the insistence in some American states that students must complete at least one online course of study in order to achieve their graduation certificate, research into the use of online forums is increasing (Bain, Huss et al. 2000; Fisher, Evans et al. 2004; Maddux and Johnson 2005). This is the background against which Downes researches and writes and it is very different from the British audience for his BECTA paper. Downes examines the technology that has made possible the rapid adoption of social network sites such as Bebo and MySpace. 60% of 13-17 year olds in Britain have profiles on these sites (Magid and Collier 2007). Downes argues that social networking and the asynchronous forums associated with it have a central role in transforming education and that the use of this technology is not about delivering content. He says that course content should be subservient to discussion and that ‘the community is the primary unit of learning’. He argues that learning through asynchronous forums becomes social rather than cognitive. He believes that pupils will create their own online content with separate network services, rather than being channeled through a VLE or learning platform. Pupils will create a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) for themselves:
These environments cut across disciplines. Students will not study algebra beginning with the first principles and progressing through the functions. They will learn the principles of algebra and other fundamental subjects as needed, progressing more deeply into the subject as the need for new knowledge is provoked by the demands of the simulation.’(BECTA 2007; p. 24)
Downes borrows heavily from the work of Garrison and Anderson at Athebascau University (Garrison and Anderson 2003) which itself is based on the use of technology by students in post compulsory education. He is influenced by theories associated with community (Wenger), conversation (Pask) and collaboration (Bruner). He makes no reference to the role of the teacher. Even in a personal learning space, Garrison and Anderson view the role of the teacher as key to deep learning on the part of the student. Downes does not describe what the learning objectives might be in a social learning space and how these might be assessed. For teachers in a system still dominated by summative end of course tests he offers no advice on how learning by discussion can be assessed. He makes no reference to that body of research that raises concerns about inequalities in social networking for learning but seems to assume that the online world is a democratic, almost utopian one, where asynchronous discussion means equality of learning for all (Magid and Collier 2007).
Despite the fact that communication technologies have developed and changed since 1997 – and that collaborative learning through online discussion has been a major theme in the literature since 2005 – government and BECTA publications make little reference to any theories of learning or models of e-learning and how these might inform classroom use of discussion forums. There is a growing, if still small, body of international literature relating to classroom use of this technology and much to be learned from experiences in further and higher education, but this makes little appearance in the official literature. Despite talk of the potential for change and transformation in the system, this literature still links forum use to the official message on communication technology in the classroom – it will help Britain to compete in the global knowledge economy; it will ensure pupils are equipped for employment in the new high tech industries; it will ensure education is inclusive, improving the engagement and achievement of those who have traditionally under performed within the school system. And that achievement will be judged by the traditional measures of classroom performance.
www.Xplana.com
In 2010 BECTA published 'School use of learning platforms and associated technologies' report (BECTA 2010) carried out by the London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education. The purpose of the study was to provide key data, analysis and exemplars to contribute to a robust evidence base on the adoption and effective use of learning platform and other integrated technologies in primary and secondary school education. A key aim of the project was to identify transferable examples of effective use of learning platforms and associated technologies. The project was designed to deliver three main types of research outcome centred around the production of evidence for effective use of learning platform technologies – that is:
The report was significant as it identified specific benefits for teaching, learning and management in schools based on practice. These included:
Becta also produced a maturity model to assist schools in adopting and developing their use of learning platforms. The Learning Platforms: Steps to Adoption guidance helps schools use the learning platform as part of everyday practice. It allows teachers and schools to identify successes, plot progress and plan to transform their school by using the learning platform and other technology. The framework defines five levels of development: aware; develop; adopt and integrate.
The Becta Learning Platforms:Steps to Adoption model is based on an original model/idea created by LP+ and Wolverhampton local authority, based on the principles of Hooper and Reiber (Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. 1995). It was developed by BECTA with the support of a group of local authority consultants and advisers who constitute the Learning Platform Network (LPN)group. The LPN is platform agnostic and materials and support offered is appropriate for all schools, irrespective of the commercial or home-grown services they use. The BECTA resources and case studies will continue to be available through the LPN beyond the closure of BECTA in March 2011 and shared under the Open Government license.
The term learning platform refers to a range of tools and services often described using terms such as educational extranet, VLE
Virtual learning environment
Defined largely by usage, the term virtual learning environment has most, if not all, of the following salient properties:* It is Web-based* It uses Web 2.0 tools for rich 2-way interaction* It includes a content management system...
, LMS
Learning management system
A learning management system is a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, and reporting of training programs, classroom and online events, e-learning programs, and training content...
, ILMS and LCMS providing learning and content management. The term learning platform also includes the personal learning environment
Personal Learning Environment
Personal Learning Environments are systems that help learners take control of and manage their own learning. This includes providing support for learners to:* set their own learning goals* manage their learning, both content and process...
(PLE) or personal online learning space (POLS), including tools and systems that allow the development and management of eportfolios.
The specific functionality associated with any implementation of a learning platform will vary depending upon the needs of the users and can be achieved by bringing together a range of features from different software solutions either commercially available, open source, self built or available as free to use web services. These tools are delivered together via a cohesive user environment with a single entry point, through integration achieved by technical standards.
Common Learning Function Functionality
Learning platforms commonly allow:• Content management – creation, storage, access to and use of learning resources
• Curriculum mapping and planning – lesson planning, assessment and personalisation of the learning experience
• Learner engagement and administration – managed access to learner information and resources and tracking of progress and achievement
• Communication and collaboration - emails, notices, chat, wikis, blogs
In principle a learning platform is a safe and secure environment that is reliable, available online and accessible to a wide user base. A user should be able to move between learning platforms throughout their life with no loss of access to their personal data.
The concept of a learning platform accommodates a continuously evolving description of functionality changing to meet the needs of the user. Becta publishes Functional Requirements and Technical Specifications that give a more precise description of how a learning platform may be constructed.
Description from Becta
Becta
Becta was a non-departmental public body ] funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, in the UK It was a charity and a company limited by guarantee. In the post-election spending review in May 2010, it was announced that Becta was to be abolished...
A learning platform is a framework of tools that work seamlessly together to deliver a student centric learning experience by unifying educational theory & practice, technology and content. Learning platforms can be described as the next generation of Virtual Learning Environment
Virtual learning environment
Defined largely by usage, the term virtual learning environment has most, if not all, of the following salient properties:* It is Web-based* It uses Web 2.0 tools for rich 2-way interaction* It includes a content management system...
s or Learning Management System
Learning management system
A learning management system is a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, and reporting of training programs, classroom and online events, e-learning programs, and training content...
s used by educational institutions. The major difference is that a VLE and LMS is an application, whereas the Learning Platform share characteristics with an Operating System
Operating system
An operating system is a set of programs that manage computer hardware resources and provide common services for application software. The operating system is the most important type of system software in a computer system...
(or CoursePark Platform) where different educational web based applications can be run on the platform.
In 2005 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) announced that by the end of 2008 every primary and secondary school in England and Wales would have its own Learning Platform. The term Learning Platform is a generic one used to describe a range of integrated web based applications that have also been referred to as Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) and Managed Virtual Learning Environments (MVLEs). Throughout this article the terms Learning Platform and VLE are used in an inter-changeable way.
The applications that form part of these online services can include web pages, email, message boards and discussion forums, text and video conferencing, shared diaries, online social areas, as well as assessment, management and tracking tools (JISC 2007).
Classroom teachers who completed New Opportunities Fund (NOF) training through a provider such as the Open University Learning Schools Programme will have used this technology, although the network communication aspect of that training was the part that received most criticism from those being trained (Leask 2002). Newly qualified teachers (NQTs) who graduated recently may have used a VLE at university (Gillespie, Boulton et al. 2007).
In 1997 13% of universities in the UK had their own VLE, this figure rising to 81% by 2002 (Timmis 2004). An understanding of a VLE and the management of network communications are amongst the core skills required of NQTs (DfES 2007). Senior teachers who completed the National Professional Qualification for Headteachers (NPQH) at the National College for School Leaders (NCSL) will also have experience of a VLE, been involved in an online community of practice and may be acquainted with the work of Gilly Salmon (Salmon 2005), whose 5-stage-model of e-learning and e-moderating has been promoted through the NCSL talk2learn online community. Many classroom teachers however will have had little hands-on understanding of this technology.
In 2006 22% of junior schools and 50% of secondary schools in England and Wales claimed ownership of an online learning environment or VLE (BECTA 2006). These figures represent simple ownership of a fairly loosely defined technology and do not reflect the ways in which it was being applied.
In 2009 40% of primary schools and 79% of secondary schools were starting to use a learning platform. (BESA 2009)
The final Becta survey of schools in 2010 found that this had increased to 67% primary and 93% secondary had a learning platform. (BECTA 2010)
Theories of learning
Teachers, even if they are not aware of the ways in which practice is informed by theory, have a shopping basket of learning theories they can pick and mix from. The work of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky on collaboration, interaction between peers and learning that is socially situated may be familiar to many (Wood 1994; Pound 2005). Other theories include behaviourism , learning styles, multiple intelligences, constructivism, constructionism and right brain/left brain thinking (Cuthell 2005). Behaviourism has held sway for most of the last century. It focused on observable behaviours and defines learning as the acquisition of a new behaviour. Behaviourists see learning as a relatively permanent, observable change as a result of experience (Pritchard 2005). Learning Style Theory proposes that individuals learn in different ways. It is based on the work of David Kolb, which states that there are four distinct learning styles (feeling, watching, thinking, doing) and that self-knowledge of one’s preferred learning style improves learning (Smith, Doyle et al. 2007). Multiple intelligences is an educational theory developed by psychologist Howard Gardner which suggests that different kinds of intelligence exists in human beings (Allen, Seaman et al. 2007). It’s a theory that has been fashionable in continuous professional development (CPD) training courses for teachers. Bruner’s constructivist theory states that learning is an active process and that learners construct knew ideas through their own knowledge. The learner selects information, constructs hypothesis and makes decisions. The role of the teacher in this is to translate lesson resources into a form that the learner can understand and to encourage and engage the learner in dialogue. The curriculum should be designed in a way that builds on what the pupil already knows and develops with them (Smith 2002). Bruner’s constructivist theory has been further developed into social (Thurlow, Lengel et al. 2007) and communal constructivism (Holmes, Tangney et al. 2001; Leask and Younie 2007). Influenced by the constructivist theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner, Seymour Papert developed his constructionist theory (Sefton-Green 2004). The role of the teacher is not to teach ‘at’ pupils, instead the teacher becomes a mediator of learning, working with pupils. Pupils construct understanding and draw their own conclusion through creative experimentation. Right-brain-left-brain thinking is a theory of the functions of the mind suggesting that the two different sides of the brain control two different modes of thinking. It also suggests that each of us prefers one mode over the other (OECD 2007). It’s the potential (and that is a word that recurs frequently in literature relating to the use of technology for learning) for ICTs to adapt pedagogy to any of these approaches to learning that has made the adoption of computer technology so attractive at a political level.Theories of e-learning
Good pedagogical practice has a theory of learning at its core. Technology is rarely designed for education and as a result there are really no models of e-learning, only adaptations of existing models of learning (Peachey 2004). For many theorists it’s the interaction between student and teacher and student and student in the online environment that enhances learning (Mayes and de Freitas 2004). Pask’s theory that learning occurs through conversations about a subject which in turn helps to make knowledge explicit has an obvious application to learning within a VLE (Allen, Seaman et al. 2007). Seymour Papert’s constructionist theories have been applied in Mathematics through the programming language Logo and in English with the use of the simulation Sim City.From the mid 1990s onwards as interest in virtual communities (Abbott 2001) in higher education increases we begin to see the emergence of e-theories that build on these and other theories of learning. Wenger described communities of practice, developing what he and Lave had first written about in 1991, where learning is socially situated and mediated through a community and this theory has been adopted to explain interaction in an online community (Wenger 2007). Social constructivist theories, where the context in which learning occurs and the social contexts that learners bring to their learning, have in turn led to communal constructivist theories as a result of the growth of online learning communities. In a communal constructivist model students and teachers are not simply engaged in developing their own information but actively involved in creating knowledge that will benefit other students (Holmes, Tangney et al. 2001; Leask and Younie 2007). In trying to understand how students work collaboratively online Laurillard developed her conversational model for learning where the discussion between student and teacher, and the ways in which the teacher mediates learning (through course resources) is what leads to deep learning (Laurillard 2006). There are common threads linking together these theories of learning; community, collaboration and discussion.
Salmon (Salmon 2005) developed a five stage model of e-learning and e-moderating that for some time has had a major influence where online courses and online discussion forums have been used. In her five stage model individual access and the ability of students to use the technology are the first step to involvement and achievement. The second step involves students creating an identity online and finding others with whom to interact; online socialisation is a critical element of the e-learning process in this model. In step 3 students are giving and sharing information relevant to the course to each other. Collaborative interaction amongst students is central to step 4. The fifth step in Salmon’s model involves students looking for benefits from the system and using resources from outside of it to deepen their learning. Throughout all of this the tutor/teacher/lecturer fulfills the role of moderator or e-moderator, acting as a facilitator of student learning.
In the absence of any or many other theories and with the popularity of online environments, especially in higher education, Salmon’s model has proved influential, although some criticism is now beginning to emerge. Her model does not easily transfer to other contexts (she developed it with experience of an Open University distance learning course). It ignores the variety of learning approaches that are possible within computer mediated communication (CMC) and the range of learning theories that are available (Moule 2007). The role of the moderator/e-moderator is one that is disputed. For Garrison and Anderson the moderator is not a facilitator but, as in the face-to-face classroom, is the central figure in the learning experience of the student and the key to developing deep learning in online discussions (Garrison and Anderson 2003). Best practice has yet to emerge and a single best practice model may be unlikely given the range of teaching styles, the potential ways technology can be implemented and the ways in which that technology itself is changing (Meredith and Newton 2003).
In spite of this diversity, pedagogy within British schools has focused on content, rather than process (Cuthell). Awareness of other theories of learning has not prevented a behaviorist model of teaching and learning being the dominant paradigm in teacher-pupil interactions. For most of last century pedagogy has been instructional in nature (Cuban 1986); it’s how teachers were taught as pupils, it’s how they were taught to teach. It may be that the focus on exam results as a way of measuring school performance, means that a change in pedagogy or a willingness to experiment is unlikely (Green and Hannon 2007). There is support in the literature for the view that new technologies are transformational (Graves 2001; Garrison and Anderson 2002) and will move education from a traditional, behaviourist, subject-focused model towards a constructivist, student-centred one (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006). This chasm between learning theory and learning practice may be a barrier to the development of VLEs and discussion forums in the school classroom.
Teacher use of computing technology
Computing technology was not created by teachers. There has been little consultation between those who promote its use in schools and those who teach with it. Decisions to purchase technology for education are very often political decisions. Staff using these technologies will not have grown up with them, they are not part of the net generation that has known nothing but computer and Internet access in the classroom (Laurillard 2006). In 1998 the government allocated National Lottery funds to provide ICT training for teachers. The purpose of the training programme was to ensure that teachers felt confident and competent to teach using ICT within the curriculum (HMIE 2002). The training was completed by 2003. Research into the effectiveness of the programme suggested that whilst training did improve teachers confidence in using technology, there was much dissatisfaction with its content and style of delivery (Galanouli, Murphy et al. 2004). The communication element in particular was highlighted as the least satisfactory part of the training, by which many teachers meant the use of a VLE and discussion forums to deliver online training (Leask 2002). Technical support for online learning, lack of access to hardware, poor monitoring of teacher progress and a lack of support by online tutors were just some of the issues raised by the asynchronous online delivery of training (Davies 2004). For a majority of teachers this may have been their only experience of using discussion forums for a professional purpose. Those teachers therefore who make use of forums in the classroom are likely to be in that category described by Rogers as innovators or early adopters (Rogers 2003). They are also likely to be more constructivist-oriented in their approach to learning (Conlon and Simpson 2003). Innovative pedagogical practices are exemplars and are not representative of typical practices found in schools (Law, Chow et al. 2005). In a small number of schools, as is suggested by the literature, there is an experimentation with and acceptance of constructivism but it does not permeate at grass roots level (Grünbaum, Pedersen et al. 2004). The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) maintains an ICT Register of innovative practice as a source of advice for teachers.Local Education Authorities (LEAs) have been tasked with providing savings through encouraging schools to opt for an agreed central learning platform provider. In the Luton vision for the school of the future this will be used to promote collaborative synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning through video conferencing, discussion forum, email and video streaming etc. (LEA 2006).
Government Policy and BECTA: the literature
Literature produced by the DfES, now the Department for Children, Schools & Families (DCSF) and the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) have been brought together in this section. BECTA is a government funded agency with a remit to provide leadership for improving learning through technology (BECTA 2007). With the DfES it leads the development and implementation of a national e-strategy and commissions research upon which decision making can be based. Research findings rely on quantitative evidence – for example the computer/pupil ratio (BECTA 2005), pupil access to email (BECTA 2006), etc. – and qualitative evidence – the observations of classroom practitioners (BECTA 2007) – collected from practitioner surveys. It has produced a small number of literature reviews on the use of technology for learning (BECTA 2003; 2004). It does not restrict itself to the impact of technology on pre-16 education but considers further and higher education as well (BECTA 2006). Its executive committee consists of six men and one woman, the majority of whom have a background in work with government departments. In most cases the literature it produces relates mainly to England as post devolution both the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament have their own independent policies for the development of technology for learning (Assembly 2007; Donnelley 2007).Jones (Jones 2003) credits New Labour with the idea of the knowledge economy and yet when Blair referenced education, education, education in his Ruskin College speech in 1996, many national governments were already using just such an idea to justify investment in technology in education (Daanen and Facer 2007). The knowledge economy argument states that the old 19th century structures of organising labour and manufacturing are dead or dying. The new economy of the 21st century will be an economy where knowledge is capital. If national economies want to compete globally they need a labour force skilled in the new technologies. By inference, school structures are also outdated, linked to an old industrial model (Hargreaves 2003).
The red brick classroom of our parents age is from an age of manufacturing and its organisation reflects this – this is the new age of knowledge (Cox 1997). Schools have to change (Hargreaves 2003). This is a constant theme running through the government and BECTA literature and can also be found as justification for the use of discussion forums in schools (Laferriere, Bracewell et al. 2001; McLoughlin 2003). Constructivist, student-centred learning can better meet the demands of the contemporary workplace and society, which wants self-directedness, lifelong learning, communication and collaboration skills (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006). This belief is not research or evidence based and yet it fuels political and policy statements and almost seeks to be taken for granted as fact. Selwyn does not passively accept these statements and using many of the tools of critical discourse analysis he has deconstructed many political statements relating to technology:
‘Pointing to the presumed high-skill information economy ignores the fact that most workers will require little more than a ‘MacDonald’s level’ of familiarity with technology, primarily consisting of lower order data-entry and limited problem solving skills’ (Selwyn 2002; p. 15).
Laurillard is equally vociferous about attempts to link school improvement to technology.
‘It is absurd to try and solve the problems of education by giving people access to information as it would be to solve the housing problem by giving people access to bricks’ (JISC 2002).
In 1997 the government sponsored Stevenson Report (Stevenson 1997) informed the education world that the state of IT in schools is primitive and not improving. Stevenson highlighted the use of email and said that every teacher and pupil should have their own. Communication, so Stevenson believed, would enrich learning and motivate pupils. Research for the report had been carried out by a private business, McKinsey & Company. McKinsey only cited one example of a girls grammar school in England as evidence for the impact that email and online communication might have on teaching and learning (Company 1997). This emphasis was re-enforced in the revised National Curriculum Orders (England and Wales) for 2000 in which the use of email and the Internet as a means of sharing and exchanging information were cited (LEA 2000).Delivering a policy speech at the BETT Education Computer Show in London in 2002, Estelle Morris, then Minister for Education, described an anywhere-anytime model of teaching and learning that could only be constructed through the use of Internet based communication technologies (BBC 2002). Her 14-19 Green Paper (2002) proposed, “Flexible access and delivery (of teaching and learning) through ICT and e-Learning” (FERL 2002). At this point e-learning was still centrist in nature, driven by content and teacher control and very much part of the school improvement debate. There was little research or evidence to confirm the utopian claims that were being made at a political level.
By 2003 a major change had occurred with the publication of Towards a Unified eLearning Strategy (DfES 2003), which defined e-learning in 5 ways – concurrent learning, cinematic learning, collaborative learning, communicative learning and consensual learning (Preston and Cuthell 2005). The strategy described collaborative learning through online environments and pupils developing cognitive and social skills of communicating and collaborating, the first time this kind of language begins to be used in policy documents. The use of a VLE was central to the success of this policy. At the same time Professor David Hargreaves, Chairman of BECTA, supported by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) and the DEMOS think tank (DEMOS 2007) opened up a debate within specialist trust schools with the publication of the pamphlet Education Epidemic : Transforming Secondary Schools (Hargreaves 2003). In this he placed a premium on teacher collaboration and the use of online technologies to create learning networks. Hargreaves speaks of a system where, in order to improve learning, knowledge must be shared between schools. Innovation networks are the answer. He compared this approach to the peer-to-peer networks that were developing on the Internet to allow music enthusiasts to share sound files (much of which, he failed to consider, was considered illegal). Innovation networks within education would allow teachers to share good practice in a similar way. He offers to teachers the ongoing dream of better teaching and learning through the use of technology and in that respect what he says is part of that constant theme of school improvement in the literature relating to the use of technology in education. In the same year ‘ICT and Pedagogy’ (Cox, Webb et al. 2003) from BECTA described briefly how technology could impact on pedagogy with online discussion and collaboration changing the relationship between teacher and taught. Clearly constructivism is in the air even if it is not mentioned by name. It’s difficult to gauge the impact that such publications have although in 2003 Hargreaves work was given centre stage at the SSAT National Conference (SSAT 2007) and in SSAT literature that was sent to schools. Every specialist school received copies of Hargreaves publications. 2003 marks a growing emphasis on online collaboration in the official literature and there is a distinct link between Hargreaves work at BECTA, the DfES and SSAT.
In 2003 BECTA also published a literature review on the use of MVLEs and VLEs in education and a consideration of the implications this technology had for schools in the UK. The literature was mainly further and higher education based with simple descriptive examples of its use. It clamed that online discussion could enhance learning, improve student technological skills and promote reflective thinking. The role of the e-moderator was seen as being central to the learning process in discussion forums. Three examples are given of such use in schools, but these are only described in very simple terms with few details of any impact on learning. In a Bristol specialist school forums were being used to create a community of practice for staff, but a visit to these forums in 2007 showed little evidence of regular use. It was suggested that the London Grid for Learning (LGfL) VLE offered possibilities for collaboration and interaction throughout the city, but again there were no clear examples of how this was being achieved. Three years later the LGfL would change its VLE. Material from Learning and Teaching Scotland (LT Scotland 2000) described a range of role playing and online activities carried out in the Virtual Oilspill and Versailles Experience projects. The main learning benefit cited by one of the teachers concerned was the high quality of debate in the asynchronous forums. There was no attempt to define quality or how this was assessed and it could just as easily have been related to a teacher observation of a one time event. By contrast, a subsequent exercise saw online discussions rapidly deteriorating into social chit-chat. LT Scotland claimed that the Versailles Experience project demonstrated that online learning, when based on textual computer conferencing, could ‘work well’ with school pupils, especially with the ‘disaffected’ and those who were ‘less confident’ (BECTA 2003). Again, there was no evidence presented to back up these claims or even to define what ‘worked well’ might mean. There is little consensus about such an impact on less motivated and less confident students, despite the fact that the potential for this is a recurring theme in government and BECTA literature. LT Scotland appeared to simply repeat the unsubstantiated language of the policy statements from its Westminster counterparts. The appendices in the BECTA report listed over 20 schools using VLE technology. By 2006 less than 10% were using their original product. The BECTA literature review did not include some of the school based research that was beginning to emerge by then, for example in the Mirandanet community. It did not attempt to synthesis or analyse the research from higher education. Observations from the UK school examples were based on how staff ‘felt’. The report included one example from VLE use in Singapore. Even by 2003 there were more detailed examples of school use available at an international level for the report to make use of (Barker 1999; Bain, Huss et al. 2000; Mioduser and Nachmias 2001; Angeli, Valanides et al. 2003). The report proffered no theory of learning or model of use that might best fit pedagogical practice in British schools.
In 2004 networked learning and collaboration continued to be promoted at BETT 2004 by Charles Clark, Secretary of State for Education (Teachernet 2004). In its review of Progress towards a Unified E-Learning Strategy the DfES sought the views of school leaders, teachers, ICT co-coordinators and network managers through an online questionnaire (DfES 2004). It received 430 responses, including grouped responses from bodies such as professional associations. With around 24000 state schools in England alone there are issues over how representative the survey is. Question 15 in the survey asked:
In your experience what are the most significant achievements of e-learning? 105(49%) respondents said flexible learning was the most significant achievement of e-Learning e.g. the learner can choose a convenient time to learn, rather than having to adapt to timetables. 65(30%) highlighted collaboration amongst learners e.g. chat rooms where discussion can provide peer group support and the opportunity to debate with other students (DfES 2004).
The key research findings in a BECTA literature review of ICT and Attainment in the same year were that in relation to teaching and learning with VLEs, teachers needed to learn skills to moderate online discussions and that more research was required (Cox, Abbott et al. 2004). The review conceded that computer mediated communication (CMC) had recently been a feature of research in English classrooms, but gave no indication of where in England this research had taken place and indeed the only reference given in the main body of the document is to research from Northern Ireland.
Experiences in Northern Ireland have suggested that valuable understandings and skills can be developed through the use of asynchronous communication, although the results were not supported by any standardised test scores (Cox, Abbott et al. 2004; p. 14).
The Clark and Heaney research referred to here has been dealt with elsewhere in this paper. The ‘holy grail’ of test scores is mentioned. As experiences in higher education were suggesting at the time, assessment of asynchronous discussions was an unresolved issue – assessment with standardised tests was not a suitable tool. The BECTA review recognised that managing CMC was a complex task for which training was required and that the use of CMC changed classroom practice, again providing little detail of this.
2005 saw many themes being brought together in the official literature. Harnessing Technology: Transforming Learning and Children's Services, (DfES 2005) talked about the changing nature of teacher-pupil relationship, learning beyond the classroom, peer collaboration, sharing ideas through online networks, developing specially-tailored online communication activities so that students feel able to participate more in discussion, a ‘children’s workforce able to access online training materials and to participate in web-based discussions with their peers’ (DfES 2005; p. 58). The use of the term workforce clearly demonstrates the ongoing obsession with the economy. This document represents a political vision, as opposed to one which is evidence or practice based. The clear message was that collaboration, discussion and online forums had great potential, if only they could be designed for learning. The Learning Platforms (DfES 2005; DfES 2005) literature of the same year re-enforces this. Both Primary and Secondary documents are sub-titled ‘Making IT Personal’, linking the use of technology into the wider government personalised learning/school improvement agenda (DfES 2007). The Primary School Document lays out reasons for adopting learning platform technology – it will raise pupil achievement and lesson teacher work burden.
‘Email and chat tools make it easy for pupils to communicate within a school or even across schools, working through problems together, exchanging useful ideas and sources of information’ (DfES 2005; p. 10).
The technology ‘adds a new dimension to lessons, which they (pupils) find refreshing and motivating’ (DfES 2005; p. 34). These statements were supported by two junior school case studies although these make little mention of asynchronous learning, apart from an example of email use by pupils (where pupil emails are checked by a member of staff before being sent via a proxy server so that pupil email addresses cannot be identified). There is little contextual analysis in the junior school case studies. Readers are told that:
‘The whole process (i.e. the implementation of asynchronous learning) needs to be driven by a different model of learning, aligned more closely to modern methods of teaching in primary schools and of staff management. Such a project needs people who can concentrate purely on these issues and their implementation’(DfES 2005; p. 26)
So says a teacher quoted in the document and yet elsewhere readers are warned about the ‘danger that a learning platform can dictate methods of curriculum delivery through its underlying model of learning’ (DfES 2005; p. 26), with no attempt to clarify what that model might be. The use of language in the document can be emotive, for example the implication that not to adopt the technology means somehow that teachers will be viewed as not ‘modern’. This is not a politically neutral document and needs to be seen in the context of a centralising government policy.
The Secondary School learning platform document repeats much of the text and many of the claims from the junior school one, but also introduces yet again the link between skills in technology and employment. ‘Daily use of these tools in school will ensure that pupils are better equipped to cope and thrive as they move into the world of work’ (DfES 2005; p. 10) because learning platform technology is being used in industry (again with little evidence to support this). Similar case studies appear here, with the example of one school using discussion forums in A Level history, with teachers using the questions and answers as the basis for set coursework assignments. This is as good an example as any of Cuban’s observations that classroom/teacher use of technology merely replicates traditional classroom practices (Cuban 2001). The 2005 BECTA Review (BECTA 2005) simply stated that levels of VLE and MVLE use in schools was low, that there was potential for teachers to use these as professional communities of practice, but that there was no evidence of this emerging – and this at a time when the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) was heavily involved in promoting its online forums and the DfES Innovations Unit was hosting discussion forums on the NCSL talk2learn site.
By 2006 the BECTA Review made available data relating to the use of online learning environments in the school sector. 22% of primary schools had access to a learning platform and 24% of secondary schools; 14% of primary schools had a VLE and 38% of secondary schools (BECTA 2006). There is no definition in the report of the differences between the two or indeed of the ways in which schools perceive differences. The report claims that:
There is case study evidence of a growing sophistication in the use of VLEs in the schools sector, particularly at Key Stages 3 and 4. Examples include a live mentoring service, access to web-based resources matched to learning style, and VLEs that extend to other schools and, in one, case community outlets. However, these examples currently represent pockets of leading-edge practice (BECTA 2006; p. 32).
The reference cited for sophisticated use is an unpublished BECTA report and based on this it is difficult to substantiate these claims. The live mentoring service may have been that piloted by the SSAT and this is dealt with later in this paper.
In the same year BECTA commissioned the Open University report Educational Change and ICT (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006), which was an exploration of the implementation of strands 2 and 3 of the DfES e-learning strategy. Strand 2 related to integrated online support for pupils and strand 3 dealt with a collaborative approach to personalised learning, both of which utilised learning platform/discussion forum technology. 125 schools were surveyed using a web questionnaire (as well as 70 telephone interviews), 86% of whom were implementing a learning platform/VLE or MLE. These schools had to show evidence that they were moving towards the government’s e-strategy and were not typical of schools in general. If we accept that these are early adopters, of the 86% using this technology, the paper claimed that level of use varied considerably and was at best ‘patchy’. Evidence is quoted from one un-named local authority with 66 schools using a learning platform managed by a commercial supplier. There are 21,000 pupils registered on the system – no distinction is made between schools or key stage groups.
‘The LA estimates that roughly 50% regularly engage in discussion, much of which is of a social nature and takes place outside school time. At the time of the interview, the most active of the discussion areas was ‘religion and spirituality’ (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006; p. 39).
Discussions were moderated by the company and not by teachers or tutors, but there is no evidence of the ways in which they moderated discussions or assessed learning. There was no attempt to evaluate why religion and spirituality might lend themselves to online discussion in a way that other areas of the curriculum did not. This is an important area for research. Pask’s (Cybernetics 2007) learning strategies – serialist learners tackle a subject step by step (for example, Mathematics or Arithmetic); holistic learners explore subjects in a haphazard way until an overall framework emerges (for example, English Literature) – may provide some insight into which subject areas best lend themselves to an approach that involves discussion forums.
The Report provides one further example of forum use:
‘In one school the science department is using the communication forums to challenge students’ thinking via an open community-focused dialogue in chemistry, to which the chemistry teacher also contributes’ (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006; p. 39).
Again, there is little detail here, no examination of the role of the teacher and no indication of measurable outcomes, although the Report did provide one valuable insight into teaching practices and the praxis between theory, policy and practice.
‘Evidence of pedagogic shifts was rare. There appeared to be a reality-rhetoric gap in this study’s data: what people say needs to change is not reflected in the ways in which they advocate or are implementing technologies. While the rhetoric is about transformation, the ways in which use of ICT is envisaged is more likely to reinforce traditional pedagogical models – albeit with greater differentiation for learners through the use of ICT to automate teaching and assessment’ (Twining, Broadie et al. 2006; p. 52).
This is hardly surprising. Research from across the border in Scotland had already suggested this (HMIE 2002; Condie, Munro et al. 2005). The use of technology to provide differentiated teaching and learning resources was one which had been a central theme in government literature since the 1990s.
It’s hard to predict anything, let alone the future (Cuban 1986) but 2007 continued with a rash of government and BECTA literature that crystal ball gazes into the next twenty years by repeating many of the existing themes and claims of the past ten years. The 2020 Vision Report (DfES 2007) described a knowledge-based economy and preparing pupils for this; it’s the collaborative, team skills that industry needs to compete in global markets and it’s ICTs that will enhance collaboration and creative learning. An Investigation of Personalised Learning Approaches used by Schools (DfES) (Sebba, Brown et al. 2007) said that teachers had to give up control, become more involved in discussion with pupils and use technology to facilitate collaboration with peers (in the same school and in other schools). How technology supports 14-19 Reform (BECTA(o) 2007) implied that the use of a Learning Platform by schools in the London Borough of Lewisham had significantly improved the 5 A-C grades in its schools. The BECTA Annual Review 2007 (BECTA(l) 2007) sees a return to rhetoric and utopian thinking. The opening page of the Report carries a quote from a Deputy Headteacher who has ‘noticed’ the benefits of technology in raising achievement, especially that of boys:
‘Over the past two years the boys have achieved as well as, if not better than, the girls in this school. It’s got to be down significantly to the use of ICT in classrooms right across the curriculum’ (BECTA 2007; p. 1).
The use of computers in schools is linked once more to economic well being and global markets. It is claimed that only 20% of schools, ‘our best schools and colleges’, are using technology effectively so that it ‘transforms the experience of learners’ and that ‘every learner can benefit’ (BECTA 2007; p. 5). Simplistic use is made of a case study from a school in Northern Ireland where pupils created a multi-media tourist guide in collaboration with another school.
‘As part of this, pupils used online discussion tools within LearningNI, an online learning environment, to store and share documents, images, audio and video files that they had previously created.’(BECTA 2007; p. 24)
This is a misleading statement confusing the discussion tools with the collaboration tools available on the learning platform. There is one further statement about the use of learning platform technology in a named secondary school.
‘The learning platform provided an opportunity for teachers to have regular, ongoing and one-to-one dialogues with students and to respond to them as individuals taking into account their personal learning needs and styles.’ (BECTA 2007; p. 7)
The Report ends with a quote from a Headteacher who explained to his staff that:
‘We had no choice other than to embrace the new technology. If we didn’t, they wouldn’t have a job in five years’ time. It wouldn’t be me putting them out of work, it would be the students. They would refuse to be taught in any other way’.(BECTA 2007; p. 25)
The new technology was the learning platform with its range of collaborative tools. There’s nothing like the threat of unemployment to focus the mind!
This literature moves from rhetoric to hectoring, with little use of research based evidence to back up the claims that are being made. Statements about the knowledge economy, equipping pupils with technological skills they can use in employment, individualised learning, collaborative learning, inclusive learning and a change in the nature of teaching have all been themes in the literature since 1997. The linking of technology to exam success or boys achievement says more about current concerns in education than specific results from the use of technology. Learning Platforms are now obviously the main technology that will transform schools, but there are few attempts to link collaboration to the communication tools on these platforms and when a link is made it gives a misleading impression of the capabilities of the technology. Fielding states that:
‘Within education there seems to be a predilection for the superficial and the smartly opportunistic, typified by an increasingly intemperate and insistent repetition of 'what works'(Fielding 2002; p.17).
The 2007 literature attempts to give an impression of ‘what works’ with little independent evidence or research to back up its claims. When faced with this it falls back on simple claims that that ICT ‘must’ be responsible for improved boys achievement – it could not be down to other factors such as classroom teaching. Yet again it attempts to assess performance in end of unit tests when clearly this method of assessment is not best suited to measuring learning in a collaborative, constructivist online world of discussion forums and learning platforms. And just in case its audience remains unconvinced the prospect of unemployment is raised.
The most recent BECTA paper to be accessed was ‘Learning Networks in Practice’ in the BECTA Emerging Technologies for Learning series (BECTA 2007). The purpose of this series is to make practitioners aware of new technologies and to open up a debate – although quite where this debate will or should take place is unclear. The section in the paper dealing with learning networks is written by Stephen Downes, senior researcher at the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC 2007). Downes is a specialist in e-learning with expertise in Internet culture, new media and blogging. His background is in the philosophy of knowledge. Since 2005 he has published a number of articles on social networking and learning platforms. Due to their geography Canada and the United States have at least two decades of experience in the application of computer technology in distance learning. This may help to explain why research into the use of this technology with pupils in pre-16 education is in many respects more advanced than it appears in the UK, as models of distance learning have been introduced to the traditional classroom. With the growth of the virtual schools movement (Clark 2001; Hassel and Terrell 2004; Berge and Clark 2005) in the United States; an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 K-12 students enrolling in an online course in 2001-2002 (Clark 2001); and the insistence in some American states that students must complete at least one online course of study in order to achieve their graduation certificate, research into the use of online forums is increasing (Bain, Huss et al. 2000; Fisher, Evans et al. 2004; Maddux and Johnson 2005). This is the background against which Downes researches and writes and it is very different from the British audience for his BECTA paper. Downes examines the technology that has made possible the rapid adoption of social network sites such as Bebo and MySpace. 60% of 13-17 year olds in Britain have profiles on these sites (Magid and Collier 2007). Downes argues that social networking and the asynchronous forums associated with it have a central role in transforming education and that the use of this technology is not about delivering content. He says that course content should be subservient to discussion and that ‘the community is the primary unit of learning’. He argues that learning through asynchronous forums becomes social rather than cognitive. He believes that pupils will create their own online content with separate network services, rather than being channeled through a VLE or learning platform. Pupils will create a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) for themselves:
These environments cut across disciplines. Students will not study algebra beginning with the first principles and progressing through the functions. They will learn the principles of algebra and other fundamental subjects as needed, progressing more deeply into the subject as the need for new knowledge is provoked by the demands of the simulation.’(BECTA 2007; p. 24)
Downes borrows heavily from the work of Garrison and Anderson at Athebascau University (Garrison and Anderson 2003) which itself is based on the use of technology by students in post compulsory education. He is influenced by theories associated with community (Wenger), conversation (Pask) and collaboration (Bruner). He makes no reference to the role of the teacher. Even in a personal learning space, Garrison and Anderson view the role of the teacher as key to deep learning on the part of the student. Downes does not describe what the learning objectives might be in a social learning space and how these might be assessed. For teachers in a system still dominated by summative end of course tests he offers no advice on how learning by discussion can be assessed. He makes no reference to that body of research that raises concerns about inequalities in social networking for learning but seems to assume that the online world is a democratic, almost utopian one, where asynchronous discussion means equality of learning for all (Magid and Collier 2007).
Despite the fact that communication technologies have developed and changed since 1997 – and that collaborative learning through online discussion has been a major theme in the literature since 2005 – government and BECTA publications make little reference to any theories of learning or models of e-learning and how these might inform classroom use of discussion forums. There is a growing, if still small, body of international literature relating to classroom use of this technology and much to be learned from experiences in further and higher education, but this makes little appearance in the official literature. Despite talk of the potential for change and transformation in the system, this literature still links forum use to the official message on communication technology in the classroom – it will help Britain to compete in the global knowledge economy; it will ensure pupils are equipped for employment in the new high tech industries; it will ensure education is inclusive, improving the engagement and achievement of those who have traditionally under performed within the school system. And that achievement will be judged by the traditional measures of classroom performance.
www.Xplana.com
In 2010 BECTA published 'School use of learning platforms and associated technologies' report (BECTA 2010) carried out by the London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education. The purpose of the study was to provide key data, analysis and exemplars to contribute to a robust evidence base on the adoption and effective use of learning platform and other integrated technologies in primary and secondary school education. A key aim of the project was to identify transferable examples of effective use of learning platforms and associated technologies. The project was designed to deliver three main types of research outcome centred around the production of evidence for effective use of learning platform technologies – that is:
- a set of case studies of schools that have effectively implemented and used learning platforms and associated technologies to help achieve educational or organisational benefit
- an evidence base and examples of effective implementation and use
- a set of benefits describing how schools have used these technologies to help them achieve their aims or to tackle specific issues.
The report was significant as it identified specific benefits for teaching, learning and management in schools based on practice. These included:
- Improved organisation of information and communication across the school – here learning platforms were found to be leading to improved coordination of information and communication within school communities (i.e. between school leaders, managers, teachers and governors); improved communication and organisation of learning between teachers and learners; and expanded opportunities for school-focused communication between learners.
- Parental involvement and supporting learning at home – here learning platforms were leading to parents being better informed about their child’s learning and about the school, and learners receiving more support to continue learning at home.
- Increased opportunities for independent and personalised learning – here learning platforms were leading to an increased diversity of learning resources; widened access to learning resources; an increased relevance of learning resources; and increased motivation and support of independent learners.
- Enhancing the accessibility, quality, relevance and range of learning resources – here learning platforms were found to be helping teachers to access resources to support the curriculum; providing a range of engaging, fun and motivating resources for learners; and providing support for learner involvement in creating resources to enhance links between the school and the family/community.
- Improved processes of monitoring and assessment for learning and teaching – here learning platforms were found to be leading to increased opportunities for learner self-assessment and peer review; broadened forms of assessment and feedback; help for teachers to set effective targets; and effective use of information to identify learners who need additional support.
- Increased opportunities for collaborative learning and interaction – here learning platforms were leading to increased collaboration between teachers and schools to pool resources and expertise, and enhanced collaboration between learners.
- Enhancing digital literacies – here learning platforms were found to be helping learners to develop functional technology skills, collaboration skills and critical thinking about digital technology.
- Making best use of teachers’ time – here learning platforms were leading to increased efficiency in communication and collaboration, enhanced opportunities for flexible working, and effective management and organisation of resources.
- Facilitating effective and strategic leadership and management of teaching – here learning platforms were leading to enhanced communication of information and goals between teaching staff, school managers and leaders; better coordination of tracking and analysis of school data; and enhanced monitoring and management of teaching.
- Supporting additional educational needs and inclusion – here learning platforms were found to be enhancing schools’ capacity to cater for learners who had greater difficulty in learning than the majority of their peers.
- Improved management of student behaviour and attendance – here learning platforms were found to be supporting schools’ efforts to encourage learner attendance and promote positive behaviour for learning. This was being achieved through the enhanced recording and tracking of learner data on attendance and behaviour, and enhancing communication and sharing of learner data between teachers, school managers, parents and learners.
- Building the school identity and community – here learning platforms were found to be providing opportunities for enhanced student voice and school democracy, and leading to increased support for the development of school community and enhanced engagement with the wider community.
Becta also produced a maturity model to assist schools in adopting and developing their use of learning platforms. The Learning Platforms: Steps to Adoption guidance helps schools use the learning platform as part of everyday practice. It allows teachers and schools to identify successes, plot progress and plan to transform their school by using the learning platform and other technology. The framework defines five levels of development: aware; develop; adopt and integrate.
The Becta Learning Platforms:Steps to Adoption model is based on an original model/idea created by LP+ and Wolverhampton local authority, based on the principles of Hooper and Reiber (Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. 1995). It was developed by BECTA with the support of a group of local authority consultants and advisers who constitute the Learning Platform Network (LPN)group. The LPN is platform agnostic and materials and support offered is appropriate for all schools, irrespective of the commercial or home-grown services they use. The BECTA resources and case studies will continue to be available through the LPN beyond the closure of BECTA in March 2011 and shared under the Open Government license.