Internet / Online

TUB-Talk – 28 March 2015

This week sees another test recording for TUB-Talk, with a weekly news drop.

Direct link to Soundcloud:

As I say before the show starts, I’ll be pushing out a student show and a staff show, so I’d love to hear what you’d want out of an HE podcast. Would you like interviews, advice, news, opinion?

Let me know what would be of help and interest so I can make TUB-Talk just right for you.

Thanks for all the feedback so far. Keep it coming!

Here are the links to the stories mentioned in the podcast:

Social attitudes and tuition fees

Wonkhe –
British Social Attitudes Survey (HE) –

Sir Patrick Stewart stepping down

Huddersfield Daily Examiner –

The consequences of cramming and all-nighters

The Tab Leicester –
Telegraph –

Low drop-out figures

Times Higher Education –

Value for money

Impact –
Telegraph –

Schools, universities and employers building stronger relationships

Association of Graduate Recruiters –

The library is my new jam

Oxford, Sounds of the Bodleian –
David Kernohan on Twitter –

TUB-Talk Podcast Test. TheUniversityBlog turns TheUniversityPod…

With a new microphone to play with, I’ve put together a ‘news drop’ that will probably form part of a podcast I’m calling TUB-Talk.

The full podcast is likely to feature interviews, tips and lots of HE goodness.

Let me know what you think of this test by leaving a comment or getting in touch.

Link to Soundcloud:

Here are the links to the stories mentioned in the podcast:

Recruiting More Students

New Postgraduate Loans Announced

PhD Writing Groups

Vice Chancellor Changes

Simon Pegg Opens New Theatre At Bristol

Reading 20 Pages A Day

Thinking Too Much About Rankings

Forming Habits & Myths About Changing Habits

Gretchen Rubin’s book – Better Than Before: Mastering The Habits Of Our Everyday Lives

Counter-Extremism Strategy Dropped

Libraries, Birmingham and the ‘Digital Game’

Finding Work Beyond Job Ads and Agencies

Chris Brogan’s book – The Freaks Shall Inherit The Earth

If there is anything you would like to hear in the podcast, let me know. I’d love to hear what would turn you into an avid listener!

When You Ask The Question, “Are Learning Technologies Fit For Purpose?” #digifest15

“Asking the question is probably the most important thing.”

Lawrie Phipps made the point as he finished chairing a debate over, “Are learning technologies fit for purpose?”

It may sound dull, but his point was the best way to sum up the session between Dave White and Donna Lanclos at the Jisc Digifest 2015.

Earlier in the day, Anna Notaro told me that she doesn’t like either/or questions. While it does help me write short and punchy tweets, I do agree.

So, are learning technologies fit for purpose?

It’s an impossible question, as it involves individual decisions as much as it does group decisions. It involves education providers and administrators as much as it does learners.

Do learning technologies fit YOUR purpose? Can these tools give you what you want? And if you don’t know what you want, is this method working for you?

Dave White said that learning technologists and other professionals forget how experienced and confident they are. He suggested that if you could go back to when you were 18–just starting out at university–you would be far less likely to have the same drive to make your point. The nervewracking experience of speaking in a lecture or seminar consisted mainly of trying not to make a fool out of yourself. Newbies to the system don’t want to fall at the first hurdle. There’s so much at stake, or so it feels anyway.

One solution is to provide safe spaces so that students can build their confidence. This requires a somewhat locked-in approach using internal systems, rather than pointing toward online services that can publish work for all the world to see.


Use a VLE or use WordPress? Donna Lanclos explained that institutions have made a promise to educate their students. Learning and subsequent application of publicly used resources will provide the best opportunity for students to develop worthwhile skills. Using a VLE, she argued, doesn’t provide the same learning opportunity. Lanclos expressed difficulty in seeing why it’s so difficult to assist students in confident use of open web tools and to invest money saved from ditching VLEs on hiring more staff instead.

Questions from the audience were useful, as they looked at the flaws in the either/or questioning:

  • Something isn’t fit for purpose, but what is it? Is it the technology, is it the institution, is it something else? This needs assessing.
  • Why are we talking about a choice? You can have both a VLE and an open web.
  • We need to equip people to be competent in the open web. This requires a continuum model. Not just about knowledge in terms of content, but which technologies to use and when?
  • The reason we have VLEs is due to standards issues. Until you can bring diversity together in a reasonable format, a VLE is a practical necessity.
  • What IS the purpose of learning technologies? They are fit for purpose only if you identify what their purpose is.
  • You may want to use a social service for personal reasons, but that doesn’t mean you wish to use it as part of your course.

Lanclos said that it’s important to take responsibility for students’ learning when they do not have the understanding or experience of necessary tools. So, she continued, why is that different via the open web than through a VLE? Her closing argument stated that university is a much more holistic project than VLEs allow for. The fact they are locked in ends up sheltering students from the outside world and more practical learning.

White closed by explaining that learning technologies reflect the purpose our institutions have chosen to take. They provide a platform to frame learning around the course, rather than the individual. People can be helped through the process of education.

This takes us back to the remark Lawrie Phipps made to close the session:

“Asking the question is probably the most important thing.”

I saw neither Lanclos nor White as particularly wrong in their assertions. Such an ambiguous and open question is important because it shows how diverse the student population has become over the decades. And yet, as one audience member remarked, pedagogy over the last 20 years hasn’t been particularly transformed.

Asking the question, “Are learning technologies fit for purpose?” is a great way to continue exploring transformation that requires technology. But rather than focus on the technology at the centre, focus on the learner, on society, and on the future.

Technology Can Help The Learning Process, But It’s Not The Whole Answer

Technology Learning Process

Times Higher Education reported on a “Future Proofing Universities” seminar. Sixth-form students at the event shared their appreciation of technology, but warned that it should not be used to replace established methods of teaching.

In my last post, I stressed how important it is to keep finding new ways to learn, so long as past approaches are not ignored.

I see three purposes in which technology can assist and enhance learning that students will be grateful for:

  1. Choice – In my last post, I stressed how important it is to keep finding new ways to learn. They don’t replace what has gone before, but they open up availability to those who cannot engage with or do not have the necessary resources to access current methods. Breakthroughs in technology continue to open new doors. The only reason to close old doors is when all use and interest has disappeared. Dead isn’t dead until it is truly gone. While it exists, there is a place for it, even if it has been demoted from a previous position of prominence.
  2. Accessibility – Preparation, organisation, ease of use. Technology should help facilitate in these areas. That’s why a university website with lots of video and opportunities to connect can win over potential students. Think about what comes before the learning and what allows the learning to blossom as opposed to what directly delivers the learning.
  3. Combination – Times Higher Education noted that a Year 13 student said universities should “combine not replace“. An additional strand to current learning methods is appreciated far more than a different approach to methods altogether. Either let the new strand form a relevant part of the process or introduce it as one choice among several (see Point 1).

Rise of the Tools?

Advances in technology enhance the scope for building new tools. Universities are, understandably, trying to make the most of the new technology and tools.

At the same time, it’s easy to forget that tools are not the answer. The answer lies with you:

“…tools are only tools. Rely on them & you let tools rule you. Learn to use them, don’t seek their help.” – [Source]

Pick a question… Technology forms only part of the answer. We can build the rest of the answer through our interactions with technology. Where that takes us, who knows?

And since we’re creating the road as we’re walking down it, that’s why it’s better to control the tools. We may not be able to determine the future exactly how we want it, but we should at least try through our own choices.