Game over. I blew the whistle.

Final whistle. Game over. Goodbye Wits. I’m a consultant now. Here’s my ‘split lit‘ tale.

I arrived in Johannesburg in 2010, just as the Soccer World Cup  was about to start. Jozi seemed golden and Wits, I thought, was ready for the change game. The Elearning, Support & Innovation Unit (eLSI) under the leadership of Prof Derek Keats, DVC of Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), had been formed. Chismaba was ready. A new “tech savvy” elearning strategy heralded a new set of tactics.

Fast forward five years, and playing field had changed. Johannesburg was parched, in the midst of a heatwave, water supplies were diminishing. Change was no longer a players game. #Feesmustfall students had taken the vice chancellor hostage and were marching their anger to the Union Buildings. Most of eLSI management (apart from me) dispatched, and merged  under the Centre for Learning Teaching and Development (CLTD) “directorate”, who had unceremoniously dropped “Support & Innovation” from the eLearning unit’s name.

Innovation, by its nature, involves both failure and success. As a team, eLSI had both. We launched Sakai, we saw growth in uptake and budding change. But were unable to sustain the momentum, mainly because of an ill advised re-deployment of the software development team. I blew the whistle but it didn’t stop the game. My departure from the field was as a result of a brutal tackle. I should have packed up my boots. Quit earlier. I’m a consultant now with many tales to share.

#FeesMustFall protests have demonstrated how digital networks can be utilised to disrupt

The past two weeks of #FeesMustFall protests have demonstrated how digital networks can be utilized to disrupt higher education here in South Africa. While it may be premature to compare this movement to the Arab Spring, it is quite clear that students, with their data and cell phones, are sufficiently capable to use digital media to mobilise other students, university management and government to pay attention to their demands.

#FeesMustFall has also exposed the different digital capabilities across the Higher Education spectrum. Student’s capacity to make use of digital media to amplify and enable their campaign stand in stark contrast with parliamentarians and higher education execs relative silence within the same medium. Over the last two weeks students, executives and politicians have repeatedly missed opportunities for communication and engagement via web 2.0 technologies and social media. Despite VCs and politicos having access to traditional and new media, communication units and infrastructure, they have not demonstrated that they are able to take advantage of these alternative modalities to connect and engage with students.

If ed techies are to learn and respond to this communication gap between students and executives, then we need recognize this as a digital capability issue, offer leadership and act. Here’s a golden opportunity to promote the use of learning technologies to address many of the any educational issues raised by students. But don’t ask Radio, TV or MOOCS to replicate one size-fits-all, undifferentiated and restricted 20th-century model of higher education in an electronic form. Ed techies need to be part of a conversation envisaging a future where ICT’s are able to offer a flexible and accessible education that can be tailored and customised for each individual.

James Hilton suggests that if we don’t want to miss the opportunity to redefine education for a world in which access to information, networks, and computation is ubiquitous, then we need to do the following (my paraphrase).

• Embrace the duality of ICT. Digital is both a part of the infrastructure and a strategic asset. At present ICT is seen as a part of the infrastructure. This services delivered on this infrastructure are important, but administration and management is not its only function. ICT is also an innovation platform. The two are not competing with each other. They’re complementary roles.
• Allow ICT to play an enabling role. We accept that universities are designed to foster innovation, to create an environment in which people research, share ideas and data and come up with something new. The role that communication technologies, computation, and networks play in enabling this innovation should be used to further the teaching and learning mission of a university.
• Bring back the joy. There was a time when ICT was an enabling force on campus. This additional empowerment brought joy to many academic and student. It would be very easy to turn off the WiFi, restrict device usage and forget the joy associated with the network and become driven by fear. We need to retreat from the fear and reclaim the joy of learning and playing with ICT.

As our interactions between each other, what we are learning and what we are doing become more and more mediated by networks, we have the opportunity to build a global learning laboratory. Higher Education needs to take be invited to be part of this global learning laboratory and combine it with the scholarship of teaching and learning to begin looking for evidence-based practices about what works and what doesn’t work.

ICT can be used to enable an accessible and flexible education. Ed techies need to reclaim this audacious vision and promote a digitally capabilities right across campus, where all are encouraged and enabled to use ICT  to enhance and innovative and not only manage and control. If we are going to respond appropriately to #FeesMustFall, then we need to use this opportunity to rethink about our current use of ICT.

Welcome to Facilitating Online

I’ve signed up for a five week Facilitating Online course run by Emerge Africa. Here’s why I’ve joined.

I’ve met some fabulous facilitators in a range of organisational settings. From young adults informally working alongside teens on an outdoor youth camps to expensive organisational development experts hired in by senior managers to in to assist run an important strategic planning event. These facilitators have been confident, wise, open, innovative, real and honest. They are inspiring people and I’ve enjoyed their company and admired their ability to work with others, and assist members of the various groups (whether they be youth or executives).

I also work online. I have a Masters in Computer Assisted Education and a 20 year track record in e-learning and I’ve worked with digital materials development (print, radio, multi-media, new media and electronic platforms, graphic design, HTML, audio, video, etc.) within a range of educational and developmental settings. I have hands-on expertise with learning design (lectures, courses, workshops and seminars), presentation and facilitation skills and significant project leadership.

So…I’m a fan of facilitation and a fairly seasoned online practitioner. But if I am entirely honest with myself, I am not yet able to integrate the two concepts – Facilitating and Online – and make them complement each other in a way that enhances the intended objectives. Regularly bridging this divide between facilitation and online is one of the reasons that I have an interest in the course – Facilitating Online.
During the course I expect to be introduced to

• The guiding ideas behind online facilitation
• Theories, methods and tools for the online facilitator
• Exposed to how online facilitators steward and use the infrastructures available.

Ultimately, within any course, we are judged on the quality of our results. The problem comes with knowing when and how to measure quality. You don’t pull up a carrot to see how they are growing. Those facilitators that I mentioned earlier on that I admired, were capable of assisting a group articulate what they want and take steps towards those objectives. These are quantifiable results and I hope that with time and opportunity, I will also be able to claim such quantifiable results. Learning together as an organisation offers opportunities for a range of results that are not quantifiable to emerge. These results include innovativeness, openness, confidence, authenticity, care for the other. Those facilitators that I mentioned earlier on that I admired were also people that lived these qualities and these only became apparent only as we worked together. I hope that I and others on the course participate in the online facilitation experience, that the course will also offer opportunities for these non quantifiable qualities to emerge.

Welcome to Facilitating Online

KIMComms announces eduroam

Eduroam (education roaming), the secure world-wide roaming access service developed for the international research and education community, made my life in Boston such a breeze. Normally navigating appointments and offices on an unfamiliar campus is challenge but when on MIT & Harvard’s grounds, blanket wireless coverage allowed me, a South African visitor, to find my way around, check email and remain in touch with home, simply by opening my iPad and connecting once to their service.

In October 2013, I was very pleased when CNS announced that Wits had officially joined Eduroam. I’d noticed Eduroam occasionally appear as a wireless option and the October announcement confirmed that Eduroam was officially here. Occasionally eLSI hosts a guest on campus and usually they request Internet Access. Normally arranging guest access is a logistical mission that requires the user to almost sign their life way. With the availability of Eduroam, I thought we had passed into a new era of internet accessibility .

Sadly, as the year passed, I discovered that my optimism was misplaced. The Wits installation of this service was either not available or working, both for Wits staff and our academic guests. Every time I referred guests to Eduroam, the service did not work. Repeatedly I highlighted this problem to CNS when we had from visitors from the University of Groninen, UCT and Rhodes. Each time my query was ticketed, but assurance was given that the service was fine and the problem lay with the other universities authentication.

The ability to access WiFi seamlessly across multiple campus networks without a manual login is a massive plus

• Wits does not have to manages or provision guest accounts
• Visitors from participating institution only use their institutional credentials
• Wits users can travel to other Eduroam institutions and gain seamless access to Guest WiFi

One of the first things I do when arriving on a campus is to join the internet, courtesy of freely available Wi-Fi. I’m not a unique in this behaviour. More than 42% of mobile-phone traffic, and over 90% of tablet traffic travels by Wi-Fi Sadly, we have not got this service right at Wits yet and we cannot offer a seamless internet access experience.

tablets vs laptops

The debate between tablets (iPads and others) or laptops is a discussion that gets to the heart of the intention to use ICT. But before we re-launch the great laptop vs tablet debate, and cost out the budget required for equipping student with tablets or laptops, a department that wants portable computing devices for students should stop quibbling about the merits of each device and  start with clearly articulating how academics and students intend to use this device in their context. I’ve made an attempt to pen a few questions to assist a department ascertain what experience they envisage when their students and staff use devices.

In a teaching and learning context,  portable computing devices should be used for:

1. Exercises and practise
2. Informational dissemination and retrieval
3. Class administration and management
4. Collaborative work amongst students
5. Data entry, storage and processing
6. Initiate a range of engagement opportunities designed to support learning intentions
7. Promote autonomous learning
8. None of the above

Portable computing devices, in teaching and learning, positively impacts on:

1. Student motivation
2. Student achievement
3. Students’ higher order thinking skills
4. Student’s competence in 21st century skills
5. None of the above

Students will be expected to access the following content on their own  portable computing device:

1. Professionally marked up content
2. Content that has been purchased from a commercial publisher
3. Content supplied by the department
4. Content that has been authored by peers
5. Content that is licensed as an Open Educational Resource

Our department envisages academics leveraging these portable devices to:

1. Offer their students access to course related information, readings & resources
2. Offer opportunities to deliver multimedia
3. Offer opportunities to use web 2.0 tools for learning activities (blogs, portfolios, OERs)
4. Offer opportunities to practice blended learning

In the past two years, academics in our department have undertaken professional development in the following:

1. Introductory courses on commonly used software or applications provided by general trainers
2. Advanced courses on particular software or applications provided by specialists
3. Courses that require use of multimedia
4. Equipment-specific training
5. Courses that focus on the pedagogical use of ICT in teaching and learning
6. Subject-specific training on learning applications
7. Participation in communities of practice about the use of ICT for learning and teaching
8. Other professional development opportunities related to ICT

It’s not about the device in your hand — it’s about the experience that the technology can provide. The job of the department is to articulate the vision that goes along with the technology. I’m not talking about rephrasing the universities mission statement and describing how devices can fit this vision. A well-articulated statement needs to make the intention behind the purchase of the device clear and describes how technology can help achieve this objective. The focus should not be on the tablet or laptop but what the device does for a student. Stakeholders within departments need to construct a detailed story of their future success with the device and how this choice will define what their department will look like over the next few years.

Blended Learning

Technologies for teaching and learning are a part of the current and proposed Teaching and Learning plan at Wits. If Wits is indeed going to be tech savvy, going beyond EdTech “solutionism”  and explore how a range of different modes for course provision can best be used, then it is appropriate that a range of campus stakeholders plot out how these two separate modes of teaching and learning (traditional face-to-face learning systems and distributed learning systems) should be combined.
When considering embedding technology, Wits has made progress in the following areas:

• technology infrastructure
• integrating the learning management systems with other learning technologies
• help and support
• instructional design
• professional development
• media production services

CNS is developing a campus infrastructure that can support the embedding of technology into teaching and learning. A wireless network, broadband and communication platforms offer teachers who want to incorporate digital technologies a backbone to support learning activities. Course and student management tools such as Sakai have been deployed and the tools therein are being used in a rudimentary fashion to communicate and disseminate information. Technologies used to support student learning, such as databases of research literatures, e-text books, video lectures, and other multimedia resources, are being piloted by the library and various faculties. eLSI offers training, help and support; CNS offers software and system specialists that can provide technical assistance.

The mechanics of electronic course delivery, however, remain a challenge. Difficulties in relation to servers, tools on Sakai, service levels from CNS, Internet availability, SIMS and other technology elements have been common and have hampered the use of “course portals” (as envisaged in the previous T & L plan). If e-learning continues to grow on campus, as envisaged by current and proposed T & L plans, greater organizational capacity will be required to assist with developing digital delivery, support for online students and teachers, and to carry out the myriad other functions that are needed to keep the system running.

Wallace and Young (2010) point out that the introduction of any new technologies in education will always result in debate and policy decisions around educational methodology, implementation, evaluation and costs. They argue that the introduction of Blended Learning is not only about the introduction of a new pedagogy, but issues about power, control over education, the culture of the university, the privilege of professors, the rights of students as ‘consumers’—not only ‘how’ something is taught, but what, when, why, by whom, and for what purpose. Wits should be aware that the introduction of blended learning is closely linked to these broader contestations of power, control and institutional culture.

The biggest challenges to the proposal to adopt blended learning are the institutional variables. Blended Learning intersects with so many sectors of a university and requires careful policy development and execution. Administrators need to consider the impact of this modality on infrastructure, programmes and planning. Academics will need to reconsider long held assumptions. Some students’ ability to navigate the existing educational system is already limited; Blended Learning could be even more inaccessible to them. For students, the benefits gained by a blended course are realized only if the associated risks are mitigated; for, without careful course planning and design, the blended format could offer the worst aspects of both the live and online modalities instead of offering the best (Dziuban et al, 2011).

Supporting blended learning is challenging. The range of professional skills needed to design and develop blended courses, create and deliver faculty development, produce instructional media content, conduct assessment, and partner with academic units to develop blended courses or programs is greater in scope and depth than exists at present at Wits. If Blended Learning is to succeed at Wits, then a range of macro and meso matters will need to be addressed before an institutional blended learning initiative is realistic.

• A commonly understood definition among stakeholders for “blended learning”
• A blended learning strategy that aligns with institutional goals
• An effective organizational model to support the blended learning initiative
• Qualified staff capable of supporting diverse faculty needs and lifecycle of courses
• User support services to support blended learning
• A robust planning process to identify blended learning faculty/courses to develop
• A faculty development program to prepare faculty to teach blended learning courses, including incentives and rewards as part of the program
• Learner support resources to prepare students to learn in blended learning courses
• The ability to identify blended learning courses in the class schedule
• Blended learning policies developed around accessibility, copyright, and intellectual property
• An evaluation program to assess the impact of the blended learning initiative
• ROI calculated based on resources dedicated to the blended learning initiative
• Reusable courses and materials shared within departments engaged in blended learning

(From The Blended Learning Toolkit )

Blended Learning offers potential for improving the manner in which we deal with content; social interaction; reflection; higher order thinking and problem solving; collaborative learning and authentic assessment (Moskal et al, 2013). But institutionalising blended learning is not the silver bullet that will turn Wits into an “IT savvy” University and support 21st Century learning. Wits’ 2022 goals will not be accomplished by adopting the term Blended Learning; it will be necessary to align the Institution’s goals with all other stakeholders’ goals.

On a cautionary note, Moskal (2013) suggests that blended learning itself has a very weak statistical correlation with student success and argues that mode of delivery in general has weak statistical correlation with student success. Rather, he suggests a set of institutional variables (Institutional goals and objectives, organizational capacity, faculty development and course development support, support for online students and faculty, robust and reliable infrastructure, institution-level, longitudinal data collection and assessment, proactive policy development and an effective funding model) has come to be accepted as critical factors for blended learning success.

If more attention is paid to the issues of alignment by leadership, an institutionally-initiated blended learning programme can reap benefits that impact face-to-face teaching and learning across departments. However, significant investments in the areas mentioned will be required to build, deliver, and assess the merits of adopting a “blended learning” approach.

References
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Cavanagh, T. B., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). Blended Courses as Drivers of Institutional Transformation. In Kitchenham, A. (Ed.), Blended Learning across Disciplines: Models for Implementation. (pp. 17-37).
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (n.d.). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education., 18, 15-23. Available http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109675161200084X
Wallace, L., & Young, J. (2010). Implementing blended learning: Policy implications for universities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4). Available http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/wallace_young134.html

MOOCs

The word MOOC is an acronym for Massive Open Online Course. The term emerged in 2008 for a particular type of e-learning activity that was intended to integrate “the connectivity of social networking, the facilitation of an acknowledged expert in a field of study, and a collection of freely accessible online resources” (McAuley et al 2010). Since 2008, this format has rapidly grown in popularity, expanded, evolved (Haggard, 2013) and morphed into a less defined concept with meanings that are vague and contested (Stewart, 2013).

Sir John Daniel (2012) points out that the Wikipedia definition of MOOCs is in flux. On 2012-09-16 Wikipedia defined a MOOC as
‘a course where the participants are distributed and course materials are also dispersed across the web … this is possible only if the course is open, and works significantly better if the course is large. The course is not a gathering, but rather a way of connecting distributed instructors and learners across a common topic or field of discourse’.
By 2012-09-20 the definition had become:
‘a MOOC is a type of online course aimed at large-scale participation and open access via the web. MOOCs are a recent development in the area of distance education, and a progression of the kind of open education ideals suggested by open educational resources. Though the design of and participation in a MOOC may be similar to college or university courses, MOOCs typically do not offer credits awarded to paying students at schools. However, assessment of learning may be done for certification’.
Most recently (2014-06-01) the definition had changed to
‘a MOOC is an online course aimed at unlimited participation and open access via the web. In addition to traditional course materials such as videos, readings, and problem sets, MOOCs provide interactive user forums that help build a community for students, professors, and teaching assistants’.
These shifting definitions make it clear that a commonly shared understanding of the term has still to emerge, as suggested by Matthew Plourde’s poster entitled “MOOC: Every letter is negotiable.” MOOCs, at present, remain a quickly moving target with “new material presenting new aspects or insights becoming available on a daily basis” (Gaebel, 2013).

MOOCs are probably best understood descriptively, in contrast to traditional university courses, and may be characterised as follows:

• MOOCs have content, learning activities and engagement that occur online;
• MOOCs have a start and finishing time;
• MOOCs have no formal entry requirements and they are accessible to anyone with a computer and internet connection;
• MOOCs are free of charge;
• MOOCs are designed to support an indefinite number of participants; and
• MOOCs do not earn credits.

The term MOOC was coined by Bryan Alexander and Dave Cormier and first used in 2008 (Daniel, 2012) to describe an experimental course run by George Siemens of the University of Manitoba and Stephen Downes of the National Research Council of Canada. Siemens and Downes opened up an accredited course on their work in connectivist learning theory to the public. The original purpose of this first MOOCs was not only to provide a scaled learning opportunity, but also to improve the learning experience. A few other MOOCs followed in the footsteps of Siemens and Downes model, and the connectivist vision emphasizing “creativity, autonomy and social networked learning” in an environment where participants in the course would act as both teachers and students, sharing information and engaging in a joint teaching and learning experience through intense interaction facilitated by technology was pursued.

The MOOC model caught the attention of the press in 2012 and was touted as a “Campus Tsunami” (Brooks, 2012). When The New York Times labelled 2012 the ‘year of the MOOC’, they were not however referring to the model developed by Siemens and Downes but to high profile ‘Courses’ with enormous enrolment numbers. Popular attention from entrepreneurial vendors, education professionals and technologically literate sections of the public (Yuan & Powell, 2013) shifted to this variant, as can be seen by the large volume of press articles and blogs about the topic.

Since the original instance of MOOCs, the undergirding ideas behind MOOCs have morphed from a connectivist approach to behaviourist, so much so that MOOCs are divided into subsets –cMOOCs and xMOOCs. “cMOOCs emphasise connected, collaborative learning and the courses are built around a group of like-minded individuals’ platform to explore new pedagogies beyond traditional classroom settings and, as such, tend to exist on the radical fringe of Higher Education. On the other hand, the instructional model (xMOOCs) is essentially an extension of the pedagogical models practised within the institutions themselves, which is arguably dominated by the “drill and grill” instructional methods with video presentations, short quizzes and testing” (Yuan & Powell, 2013).

In the developed world, the combination of rising tertiary education costs, distributed communications and venture capital looking for a business opportunity to be exploited (Yuan & Powell, 2013) offered American and European universities an opportunity to think afresh about new business models that may fix or disrupt education, and force it to change. The interest in MOOCs has grown beyond the developed world, because MOOC providers have promised free access to cutting edge courses that could drive down the cost of university-level education. However, much of the early literature about the subject was dominated by thinly disguised promotional material by commercial interests or written by practitioners whose perspective is their own MOOC courses (Daniel, 2012).

MOOC literature can be divided into three classifications:
1) Contributions by individual authors on MOOCs
2) General press writing and journalism.
3) Formal and comprehensive research carried out with methodological approaches
Universities in the developing world may have been influenced by the hype generated by category one and two and I have been party to numerous hallway conversations around MOOCs and whether Wits can and should use this form locally. Two years since the Tsunami proclamation, published research is beginning to suggest that MOOCs are not conceptually as revolutionary as they seem (Bali, 2014). Although strong claims were initially made for MOOCs to drive innovative pedagogies and flexible modes of course delivery, as well as encouraging learner analytics through the processing of course data, the substance beyond the hype is lacking (Walker & Voce, 2014).

While MOOCs do provide alternative routes for students to gain new knowledge according to a given curriculum, they also highlight the many fault lines that exist in the terrain of contemporary higher education. When people express an opinion about MOOCs, they often conflate online education, with globalization, and with networked learning (Stewart, 2013). A hyped interest in technology and its place in education contributed to a shallow understanding of MOOCs and led to unlikely predictions about new educational models that will replace the established system (Hill 2012).

Although many large online free courses describe themselves as a MOOC, there is no unified “ultimate goal” for MOOCs and neither one can it be generalized why MOOCS are used. Some have argued that MOOCs help universities fulfil their ultimate non-profit goals of offering knowledge to society and widening access to education (Bali, 2014). Low completion rates (reported as less than 10% across numerous reports), the low ratio of students from underserved areas and a high percentage of registrants already with an undergraduate degree or higher have undermined this stated intention. Real motivations may not be as philanthropic, but more operational like marketing and branding for future profit-making. Ivy League universities have widely engaged MOOC service providers by lending brand, content, funds, staff, badging and policy support. Their intentions are certainly not only altruistic, and see opportunities for brand enhancement, pedagogic experimentation, recruitment and business model innovation.

In Africa, MOOCs have been positioned as an adjunct to a country’s development process and are hailed as a cost-free way to access excellent resources and learning experiences for students in less educationally privileged geographies (Haggard, 2013). Sceptics suggest that MOOCs, with their high demands for connectivity, online literacy, and English language skills, may be excluding developing world students and privileging learners from the most highly developed educational environments. This is a factor particularly relevant to the South African higher educational landscape. Others take this criticism further and suggest that MOOCs may be “yet another wave in cultural imperialism from the ‘North’ and the ‘West’ crashing across borders, washing over (or possibly washing out) local educational institutions, cultural norms and educational traditions” (Trucano, 2013).

Trucano suggests that in a developing context, there are further questions that need to be addressed around MOOCs.

• Are MOOCs addressing equity concerns? MOOCs were touted as a way to provide access to education for some of the poorest and most disadvantaged groups in developing countries. However, there is not much evidence to back up such claims. As research into course outcomes has become known, it has become apparent that most people who successfully complete MOOCs already have a university degree.
• How do MOOCs contribute towards building ‘local capacity’? MOOCs are often offered in partnership with an established platform provider and it could be argued that MOOCs are the first step to outsourcing the teaching of courses to more highly qualified teachers from other countries. If MOOCs are merely about adopting technologies developed and maintained by others, then capacity to develop such technologies ourselves will not be fostered.
• Are MOOCs vanity projects? – the decision to create a MOOC instead of investing scarce resources in other areas may lead to underfunding of other important programmes.

While this critical discourse around MOOCs is important, from an educational technologist position, there are two ways that Wits can utilize the discussion around MOOCs:

1. We can participate in the ‘MOOC phenomenon’ as a consumer of things produced elsewhere, or
2. We can use participation in MOOCs as a strategic opportunity to help to develop related local capacities.

Both options are legitimate, but the latter option, while much more difficult to pursue, may be worth serious consideration. I’d argue that Wits should take the opportunity to develop a more strategic approach to online learning and not let the polarised opinions between those who identify MOOCs as direct access to global quality education, versus those who detect a new form of cultural imperialism distract Wits from exploring a set of opportunities that have been brought to the attention of mainstream education by MOOCs.
MOOCs offer Wits the following

1. Pedagogic opportunities – for educators to experiment and evaluate different online learning approaches by developing and using MOOCs that challenge the established roles of learner and teacher and offer more flexible forms of learning and assessment that include community as well as content-based models of learning. For some, experimentation will be at the level of the individual lecturer and for others it may be departmental or large-scale cross-institutional change projects.
2. Research opportunities – MOOCs provide a great opportunity to develop research how courses can draw from a pool of open educational resources (OER) and provide their students with better and more varied teaching than individual instructors could develop by themselves.
3. Materials development opportunities – In era of knowledge abundance, the structures and roles through which we organize learning experiences are designed on pre-digital concepts of what is possible and valid. Universities’ and academics’ roles are both deeply rooted in the concept of centralized expertise. MOOCs offer opportunities to challenge this model

As a solution to the problems of higher education, MOOCs in their present form are unsustainable and without an established business model, they cannot be replicated by universities worldwide. MOOCs unfortunately are bubble, and the motivation for getting involved stems primarily from the fear of being left behind. The MOOC phenomena has however provide important opportunities to learn about online pedagogy, to research online education and to develop digital materials. MOOCs do not necessarily need to showcase an academic, high-profile ‘rockstar’ and his/her teaching. MOOCs can focus on gateway skills and help prepare students for undergraduate study and introduce skills required. The foundational or enhancement skills would be taken by students prior to applying or attending Wits. MOOCs could help prepare students for postgraduate study and develop general skills and expectations. MOOCs may support continuing education and showcase professional careers and qualifications. MOOCs geared towards vocational skills development, re-tooling and professional development could be offered in conjunction with other organisations or professional bodies (Brown et al 2014).

MOOCs have initiated a long overdue debate about the place of online teaching and learning in higher education. And while this new interest in educational technology has resulted in a lot of hype and in shallow descriptions of the potential for new educational models to replace the established system, the debates have also offered opportunities for universities to reconsider a range of different models for delivering education. Wits need not automatically follow the MOOC agenda, but should use this opportunity to discuss and debate how we as an institution can improve the quality and pedagogy of online education and learn the lessons from research on MOOCs and other earlier educational technologies.

References
Bali, M. (2014). MOOC Pedagogy: Gleaning Good Practice from Existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10(1).
Brooks, D. (2012) “The Campus Tsunami,” New York Times, May 3, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/brooks-the-campustsunami.html.
Brown, C., Deacon, A., Small, J. & Walji, S. (2014) To MOOC or not to MOOC? http://www.slideshare.net/CILT_UCT/to-mooc-or-not-to-mooc-by-janet-small-and-sukaina-walji
Conole, G. A new classification for MOOCs http://mooc.efquel.org/a-new-classification-for-moocs-grainne-conole/
Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education.
EDUCAUSE (2012, December 20). What campus leaders need to know about MOOCs: an EDUCAUSE executive briefing. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Publications.
Haggard, S. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC (BIS Research paper number 130). London, England: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf
Gaebel, M. (2013). MOOCs–Massive Open Online Courses. EUA Ocassional Papers. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publication/EUA_Occasional_papers_MOOCs.sflb.ashx
Hill, P. (2012) Online Educational Delivery Models: A Descriptive view
McAuley, Stewart, Siemens, & Cormier (2010) The MOOC model for digital practice – https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf
Plourde, M. (2013). MOOC: every letter is negotiable, www.flickr.com/photos/mathplourde/8620174342/
Stewart, B. (2013). Massiveness+ Openness= New Literacies of Participation?.Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(2). http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/stewart_bonnie_0613.htm
Trucano, M. (2013). More about MOOCs and developing countries http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/moocs-developing-countries
Walker, R., & Voce, J. The Future of Learning Conference. https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-4599533_4 (pdf)
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education (2013:WP01). Bolton, UK: JISC Centre for Educational Technology & Interoperability Standards
Yuan, L., Powell, S. & Oliver, B. (2014). Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable Online Learning in Institutions http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Beyond-MOOCs-Sustainable-Online-Learning-in-Institutions.pdf

An ICT future in our school

The primary school where my children are enrolled have taken steps towards preparing the school for the introduction of information and communication technology (ICT). The governing body are thinking of equipping teachers with laptops and Gauteng Education department have equipped the school with a set of tablets. These are exciting moves for our school and leadership are to be commended for their bold steps.
Now, I don’t want to be a wet blanket – but I’d like to suggest a little caution to parents and management before the school goes ahead and invests too much money in ICT’s. Before budgets are blown on laptops, tablets, data projectors, software etc. it is important that the school look at the following:

1. Manage expectations of staff, students and parent
2. Find an educator who’ll act as a champion, not a technician
3. Install suitable infrastructure that will support the vision for the incorporation.

Manage expectations
Computers and education are presented by many people as a given. Silicon Valley believes that they have a new technological solution for teachers that will help them solve all their problems – from admin to assessment. The business community, concerned that schools are still stuck in an industrial mind-set, want empowered employees, comfortable with working on tools of the 21st century. Parents like schools equipped with new technologies because they demonstrate that the school cares about children future.
Rapid adoption of computers, laptops, cell phones and tablets across society have left an impression that technology is driving change in education and schools have to adopt technology or they will be left behind. Yes, here’s no doubt that ICT can play in education. In the classroom, for example, ICT can take on a range of roles – library, noticeboard, intercom, jotter, simulator etc.. There’s also no doubt that ICT makes it possible to participate in learning environments that transcend classroom walls. Where we all get a bit lost, is when we focus on “what the device can do”. Instead, a school that is thinking of incorporating computers into premises should be asking is – “what aspect of ICT will best contribute to improved learning?”
Introducing ICT into a school requires more than equipping teachers and students with devices, infrastructure and the internet. If a school is not clear about what they want students to accomplish with these devices, if students and teachers are not ready for these activities and if there is no groundswell of support amongst parents, staff and students for using these devices in the manner envisioned, then it is likely that in the medium to the long term, this initiative will be costly and underused.

Find a champion
It’s assumed that computers and education are inseparable and much marketing makes the point that technology alone can deliver desired benefits to education. Technology does not make – except by lucky accident – a good teacher. It simply magnifies practice. If technology is well used, then it’s effects are noticeable. However, Ill-considered use of the technology may have results which are the opposite of what was originally planned. So before we start talking about equipping a school with tablets or laptops should be clear about how teachers are intended to use the devices. I’d suggest that the school finds a champion that that communicates the overall set of goals of the project, the components that will be required for success and the schedule for rolling out the stages of digital learning. Such a champion should be able to address the following questions

What do you want teachers to accomplish with their own computing device?

1. Distributing content
2. Collaboration
3. Communication
4. Assessment
5. Admin

What digital content will teachers be expected to use with their own computing device?

1. Content supplied by the department
2. Content that has been purchased from a commercial publisher
3. Content that they have authored themselves
4. Content that is licensed as an Open Educational resource

How do you envisage teachers using the device?

1. Distributing learning materials
2. Distributing admin information
3. Projecting Interactive learning materials
4. Delivering multimedia

How are teachers going to collaborate with their devices

1. What are teachers going to use to connect to each other (email, instant messaging, social media and intranet)
2. Is the school’s infrastructure sufficiently prepared for network and wireless access?
3. Is the school going to pay for Internet access
4. Who is going to be responsible for managing the various services
5. Who will be responsible for technical support

An enabling infrastructure
School buildings need an infrastructure that can support an influx of devices accessing the network. With both tablets and laptops it is important that as many wireless access points as possible—at least one per room. If the school’s programme take off then children will be bringing their devices (cell phone in their pocket and an iPad, tablet, or eReader) and it may be good to plan on two devices per student.
Tablets are portable – their lightness makes them easy to carry around the school. The inbuilt multimedia capacity within tablets make it easier to record sound, capture and record video and record Tablets have access to a range of educational apps and for special education, apps on tablets are more suitable to support students with speech, communication, wring and reading issues. When it comes to functionality – laptops have more processing power than tablets and can be used to support larger programmes and projects. Laptops also have more memory than tablets. Research on laptops is preferred by students because it’s easier to swap between various sources. Data entry remains easier on laptops as full keyboards are ideal for entering, capturing and working with data

Draw on the many sources of experience and expertise
The school can and should take advantage of the many resources out there to assist schools with preparing themselves for getting the school ICT ready. The Laptop for Teachers project is a government sponsored project intended to provide educators with Laptops. Microsoft’s Partners in Learning programme, has a great set of resources to assist teachers get on top of technology. Their School Technology Innovation Centre (STIC), located at SciBono is a wonderful resource for infrastructure. While I have not yet met the folk from Tablet Academy, I have been impressed with their advice on Twitter. They offer a free consultancy service. Last but not least, don’t forget SchoolNet . With over 20 years’ experience in schools, they are an invaluable resource.

Conclusion
Computing at schools should never be about the technology. Students behind screens or teachers projecting a multimedia presentation do not necessarily mean that learning is taking place. Computers might enable good teaching, but incorrectly used, their capacity to distract is great. If the schools goals are clear, an educator, and not a technician is leading the project and the leadership of the school can see how ICT infrastructure could be another building block in accomplishing those goals, then the school may see results from their spending on ICT.