Author: Maren Deepwell

  • #femedtech #OER18 #OER17… because equality matters for all of us

    #femedtech #OER18 #OER17… because equality matters for all of us

    If you have been following the reporting on the gender pay gap in the UK, then this has been a sobering week indeed. You can search for the reports from different employers here. I have had a look through many of the education providers and sector bodies that I work with and the scale of the ‘gaps’ highlighted in some of the reports is staggering. Not a surprise, given my day to day experience of the sector, but still – staggering.

    As a chief executive I have reflected much during this week on how we can change things across the system. There are so many aspects to the problem that there is definitely no shortage of things we should tackle and there is much to do in relation to the professionalisation of Learning Technology.

    But on a more personal note this has also reminded me of how important it is that we continue to work towards achieving greater equality – in all its forms. So with a large international conference on openness in education just around the corner I hope that there’ll be much to learn and discuss from different, global perspectives. I also want to help give a voice to this conversation together with colleagues, and make sure that we consider equality in the context of openness.

    Powerfully, Catherine Cronin spoke of criticality, equality and social justice at OER17 in London last year. In the closing plenary we were asked to respond to a call to action… #Iwill #OER17 and many participants in the room and on social media joined in, making their voices heard and sharing their aspirations, making a commitment to taking action. I think it’s time to renew our vows to take action #OER18.

  • Developing collaboration as a virtual team

    Developing collaboration as a virtual team

    Cover image: Education is Changing by @bryanMMathers is licenced under CC-BY-ND

    This is a joint post with Martin Hawksey (cross-posted here)

    This is the second in a monthly series of blog posts in which we take an open approach to organisational transformation. In this series we share our experiences as senior staff leading our organisation to adopt virtual operations.

    If you have missed the first post about how we began our journey you can revisit the story thus far here or here.

    March

    This month we talk about how we develop virtual and blended collaboration. Collaboration is one of our organisation’s core values and we encounter many challenges as we get to grips with our new virtual way of working and as the demands of a busy workload exert pressure. We also reflect on how the way we work informs our professional practice as Learning Technologists.

    Maren: One of the things we thought about most ahead of the transition is to provide consistent support for collaboration. I mean support in terms of the tools we use, the way we work and for each member of staff. For example, we put in place both virtual and face to face catch ups for us as a team and one to one, a blended approach so to speak. Interacting synchronously combined with regular contact via email and shared updates using e.g. Google docs form another part of that approach. Particularly during the first few months we want to make sure that there isn’t a cliff edge, that we gradually translate our working relationships into a virtual way of working. We started virtual team meetings a long time ago to help build the skills and confidence we need to be able to rely on the meetings even when things are busy and I think that has been a real win for us. For me, team meetings always provide a sense of stability and connectedness. Would you agree?

    Martin: Having been employed by ALT for over 4 years working remotely I agree team meetings have been very important. Thinking back to my own transition from office based to remote the biggest difference I felt was due to not physically being with my colleagues. At one point in my career I was only going to the office once a week but that was enough in terms of a sense of connection and the affordances of seeing and speaking to someone in the same room. I think it’s important not to ignore the social aspects of working in a team and something I find very useful is the opportunity to just hang out with others with a non-work agenda and team meetings are a great opportunity to top and tail business with what’s going on in life in general. This was something that was recently highlighted in an interview with John O’Duinn for InformationWeek who is a seasoned remote worker and who is currently compiling his experience in a new ebook – Distributed. The blend in all of this is also very important and a feature which I think provides a strong foundation for our future is also a commitment to meet in person. Sometimes this is maximising opportunities such as using time together when attending the same event, but also by design and we’ve committed to trying to meet face-to-face once a month. As a line manager do you find managing a virtual team harder?    

    Maren: In terms of line management, I find it easier to manage a team that is fully distributed, rather than having some staff work remotely and others office based as we had before. I have always had line managers who I have worked with remotely, so it’s something I have experienced from both sides. Still, building relationships, providing support and creating a shared vision takes time and effort regardless of how you do it. In my experience, consistency is key. Setting an example through how we work does help, but it takes time to embed all the new processes we have established.  So regardless of how busy things get, sticking to our weekly team meetings and making time for individual catch ups is essential to keep us communicating and collaborating.

    Especially when a busy workload is putting pressure on us as a team, I try to focus not only on practical outputs but also try to pick up non-verbal communication or informal chat. That part can be harder when you don’t meet in person. For example making a joke or sharing frustration can be much more difficult to interpret correctly when you don’t see someone’s facial expression, body language or gestures. There are virtual equivalents (for instance I have certainly become more expert at knowing what different emoticons mean) but things can get lost in translation. In terms of the technology we use, chat tools can provide a good informal space for informal interaction and as we are a relatively small team we can all join in if we want to. I find I value that more now and I make more use of chat or calls to check in or say hi to someone outside of meetings. I’m trying to find balance between working together effectively as a team, providing personal support when needed and keeping space to think. From a line manager’s perspective that’s especially important, but I think it’s something we all experiment with. What’s your take on this?

    Martin: I find it interesting to consider the balance of different communication methods. For team members who were office based we’ve removed an awareness mechanism of being in the same place. We have various tools to replace some of this but, for example, how do you replace glancing over your shoulder to see if someone is busy? In some instances there are very simple measures. For instance, some of the team will either have their lunch break in their calendar, or like me, add a calendar event when you go for lunch. This overall appears to work well but does require everyone to check calendars before they decide to launch into a chat conversation with you. The same is true if you are in a hangout meeting, it’s in your calendar but someone doesn’t know you are busy until the look over the calendar. It perhaps no surprise that in our new staff member induction making sure they are subscribed to other team member’s calendars is one of the key tasks, but people, including myself, sometimes forget to check. I think it’s impossible to replace ‘glancing over the shoulder’, but using calendars can help. The challenge I think is how do you normalise something instinctive with something that is artificial and mechanical, we are all human after all. Do you have any thoughts on how we move from putting in place a new way of working to figuring out what works and how to normalise it?

    Maren: That’s a question I have been thinking about and I am sure it’s a common problem for teams in general and virtual teams in particular. For me, there are three key things we do that help: first, instead of focusing on the physical behaviour or action, we ask why it’s important. For example, glancing over to see if someone is available can be important because you have a question or need help. We recognise the need to be available for each other, to answer quick questions for instance, and our use of chat tools to make sure an answer or attention can be available at a distance provides an effective solution most of the time. Second, we actually reflect on how we work together, as a group. The drop-in sessions we have organised for example help us share our different perspectives, getting a better sense of how we as individuals feel and think about how we work. The ‘not knowing who has gone for lunch problem’ is a good example of how we solved a problem as a team. We discussed it, suggested options and decided as a group to try the current approach. We took joint ownership of both the problem and finding a solution. Another example is the “show and tell” part of our team meetings, dedicated time for showing each other ways in which we have solved something or found a new tool. These sessions are part of us normalising new things and feeling more empowered in the process. I find that even if something new feels artificial or cumbersome to begin with, as long as I can see how can be useful, it starts to feel more normal quite quickly. Transferring my to do lists to a digital format is a good example of this in my personal practice. Despite the fact that I wanted to make the jump, it took me months of trial and error (and, frustratingly, less productivity) to figure out what works for me and to some degree it’s still work in progress. Whatever tool I use, there are times when pen and paper are best. We started out talking about how we work together, how we collaborate and support collaboration. But we seem to have come to discussing some of the most fundamental issues that Learning Technologists grapple with every day when they try to do their best to support learning and teaching with technology. So, picking up on your years of experience of being home-based, my last question is how you think working remotely has influenced your work as a Learning Technologist?

    Martin: Great question. As an advocate of open education its interesting to watch the development of approaches that build on the affordances of a distributed education such as connectivism. Whilst working remotely it’s interesting to consider how as a team we can learn and also share knowledge. This also goes beyond our team and the bigger question is as a membership organisation how can we help our members develop in the field of learning technology in the creation and dissemination of new knowledge and understanding. Part of this is creating opportunities which exposes points for connections to be made either within a safe space like the ALT-MEMBERS mailing list or in the open so that they can be of benefit to the general public. It’s interesting to consider how things like “show and tell” create points for us as a team to share what we do and create opportunities for learning and as a learning technologist I’m interested in how these patterns can be applied in education.

  • Researching alternative ways of measuring impact in Learning Technology

    Researching alternative ways of measuring impact in Learning Technology

    Last year I worked on finding a sustainable new home for the Open Access journal Research in Learning Technology. As part of my work for ALT, this was the third transition I have worked on since 2008 and during this period I have contributed to the thinking around Open Access publishing in Learning Technology, often through ALT’s contribution to initiatives such as the 2012/3 ‘Gold Open Access Project‘. This year I will be working with a new group set up by ALT to steer the future development of the journal:

    A new Strategic Journal Working Group to help steer the development of the journal now being published by ALT in partnership with Open Academia has been established and we are grateful that representatives from other scholarly bodies who are publishing in a similar model, have agreed to join the group to share best practice and support each other. The group is chaired by Prof Neil Morris, who also chairs the Editorial Board, and we are delighted to welcome colleagues from ascilite, ILTA and the OLC alongside our Editors.

    As well as learning from each other, the group is going to be examining alternative ways of measuring impact (alternative to the established impact factor, which the journal has not been awarded to date). This is an area I am particularly interested in for three reasons:

    Knowledge exchange happens elsewhere
    Firstly, much of the most cutting edge research and practice in Learning Technology is not published in formal journals. Even the most responsive Open Access peer-review system can’t necessarily keep pace with the quickly changing technology landscape we work in and so less formal ways of knowledge exchange on blogs, on social media or in project reports is often more important and useful.

    Different media
    Secondly, a lot of the most interesting ideas may be shared as videos, drawings, data visualisations and so on, in short, they may not easily fit into the traditional formats measures like an impact factor were designed for. What we cite and where we link to can be harder to track. As we use new technologies to communicate and share information the way in which we cite/link to sources needs to adapt.

    Crossing boundaries
    Another aspect of what makes measuring impact interesting in Learning Technology is the way we cross boundaries of disciplines in research, policy and practice. Coming from a discipline like Anthropology, which has a hugely broad frame of reference depending on what you specialise in, it still seems challenging to what extent the work of Learning Technologists crosses boundaries.

    So, keeping all this in mind, here is where I am in my work to research alternative ways of measuring impact…

    I started with a a blog post DOAJ LAUNCHES THE DOAJ BEST PRACTICE GUIDE which I came across as Research in Learning Technology was recently awarded the DOAJ best practice seal. It’s a useful new guide that provides a lot of helpful information to publishers, authors and policy makers interested in Open Access publishing. One of the resources it referred me to was a tool for authors called ThinkCheckSubmit. Whilst not specifically talking about how the impact of the journal is measured, it does ask authors to check the publisher’s information for example how the journal is indexed or whether the publisher is a member of OASPA or COPE.

    Also in a blog post, this time on the altmetric website, I discovered that “the next-generation of Altmetric donut is here!“. If you are new to altmetrics, here is how they explain what it’s all about:

    Altmetrics are metrics and qualitative data that are complementary to traditional, citation-based metrics. They can include (but are not limited to) peer reviews on Faculty of 1000, citations on Wikipedia and in public policy documents, discussions on research blogs, mainstream media coverage, bookmarks on reference managers like Mendeley, and mentions on social networks such as Twitter.

    Sourced from the Web, altmetrics can tell you a lot about how often journal articles and other scholarly outputs like datasets are discussed and used around the world. For that reason, altmetrics have been incorporated into researchers’ websites, institutional repositories, journal websites, and more.

    Whilst I have been familiar with altmetrics for some time, I hadn’t actually come across the history in much detail and I found it really helpful to visit http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ and read up on some of the older posts. It gave a me a better insight into the thinking that informed the development of the tools and policies involved. It also reminded me of the 2014/5 HEFCE publication called “The Metric Tide” which includes an executive summary, literature review and correlation analysis. As part of the recommendations the report featured, it states:

    These recommendations are underpinned by the notion of ‘responsible metrics’ as a way of framing appropriate uses of quantitative indicators in the governance, management and assessment of research. Responsible metrics can be understood in terms of the following dimensions:

    • Robustness: basing metrics on the best possible data in terms of accuracy and scope
    • Humility: recognising that quantitative evaluation should support – but not supplant – qualitative, expert assessment
    • Transparency: keeping data collection and analytical processes open and transparent, so that those being evaluated can test and verify the results
    • Diversity: accounting for variation by field, and using a range of indicators to reflect and support a plurality of research and researcher career paths across the system
    • Reflexivity: recognising and anticipating the systemic and potential effects of indicators, and updating them in response.

    The recommendations outlined in the report apply mostly to HEIs, funders and government bodies. There are some however that are directly aimed at publishers. These are:

    Publishers should reduce emphasis on journal impact factors as a promotional tool, and only use them in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics that provide a richer view of performance. As suggested by DORA, this broader indicator set could include 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor, SCImago, editorial and publication times. Publishers, with the aid of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), should encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of more detailed information about the specific contributions of each author. Publishers should also make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the academic quality of an article rather than JIFs. (Publishers)

    Publishers should mandate ORCID iDs and ISNIs and funder grant references for article submission, and retain this metadata throughout the publication lifecycle. This will facilitate exchange of information on research activity, and help deliver data and metrics at minimal burden to researchers and administrators. (Publishers and data providers)

    Interestingly there are a number of recommendations for HEFCE and future REF exercises, that as far as I can tell seem to have not necessarily been picked up given the recent closure of HEFCE. Still, it is useful to revisit this report and its recommendations within the wider context of thinking about alternative ways of measuring impact.

    I also came across an ebook that is new to me, published by altmetrics and Scholastica, entitled “The Evolution of Impact Indicators”.  The whole publications looks extremely useful and has a lot of references that are relevant to my work, but the chapter that I am particularly interested in is called “Beyond the Impact Factor”. It discusses a number of alternatives to the impact factor including the EigenFactor and the H-Index. The H-index is probably the one I am most familiar with, but it’s also useful to remind myself of how this is tracked:

    Google Scholar: Google Scholar provides the h index for authors who have created a profile.

    Publish or Perish: Publish or Perish is a software program that retrieves and analyzes academic citations from Google Scholar and provides the h index among other metrics. Publish or Perish is handy for obtaining the h index for authors who do not have a Google Scholar profile.

    Scopus: Scopus provides a Citation Tracker feature that allows for generation of a Citation Overview chart to generate a h index for publications and citations from 1970 to current. The feature also allows for removal of self-citations from the overall citation counts.

    Web of Science: Web of Science allows for generation of the h index for publications and citations from 1970 to current using the “Create Citation Report” feature.

    Now that I have started to refresh my memory of some recent developments, my next step will be to take this back to my desk, do some work on the journal itself and compare notes with my colleagues from the other publishers.

    Read more:

  • Space to think

    Space to think

    ‘Space to think’ inspired by a blog post by Bryan Mather’s “Paintone” – which can be remixed here: http://sandbox.wapisasa.com/remix?paintone

  • Openness: a practical value #OER18

    Openness: a practical value #OER18

    In a few weeks, many colleagues from across the world will convene in Bristol for the OER18 Conference and from an active conference committee, and a inspiring line up of keynote speakers to a full programme of sessions about the politics and practice of openness in education there is so much to look forward to. I have been following the blog posts published on the conference site, thinking along with the debate about how open practice is being embedded in institutions, how advocates are winning over policy makers and funders and how our perspective on OER is changing. Inspiring stuff – and many difficult questions facing us, too.

    Yesterday I was talking to a group of UK policy makers and one of the things I spoke about is how openness is a practical value to me. It’s not a lofty concept or a hopeful, idealistic vision, it’s a practical measure to be implemented, a yardstick against which new proposals can be evaluated.

    From Open Access publishing to open licences, from shared content to open governance, it’s not a value that is easy to put into practice at any time. In her #OER18 post, Lorna Campbell reflects on this when she writes:

    To my mind, the success of the OER Conference has always been founded on its willingness to examine and renegotiate what “OER” means, and this is one of the themes I’ll be exploring in my keynote.  And by that, I don’t mean defining the specific attributes of what constitutes an Open Educational Resource, I mean critically reflecting on what openness means in relation to education at different points in time and from different perspectives, because as Catherine Cronin reminds us in Open Education, Open Questions, “openness is a constantly negotiated space”. Open education looks very different to each and every one of us, and our perspective will depend entirely on where we are standing and the privilege of our vantage point.  And of course it is inevitable that our perspective will change as our roles and careers develop over time.

    Outside of the OER community, most audiences that I speak to seem to think that openness means not generating revenue. It means taking a risk to give away something of one’s competitive advantage. It is for those who are privileged, those who can afford to spend time, to dedicate resources to something besides their core business. And so the work of advocates, individuals and organisations, is crucial to making business cases, to convincing governments and providers of the practical advantages, the bottom line, the success that can be achieved if a particular open model or platform is adopted. Open textbooks, for example.

    And yet despite the many signs of progress, there are many instances of what was once open, for example a repository, a course or a platform, turning into something else once it becomes valuable. That’s when economic imperatives take over openness as a value and turn it into a marketing strategy.

    For me, that is one of the reasons why it’s difficult to demonstrate that doing, being, leading ‘open’ is a practical value you can turn into success without betraying the principles involved. Openness has draw backs, just as every other approach, and sometimes these are difficult to negotiate. Which is why it is so powerful when you see people do just that. And that is what I am looking forward to learning about at OER18. How we can make openness work for all, warts and all.

    So if you are there in person, joining in on Twitter, watching the live stream or coming along to Virtually Connecting, blog, lurk or otherwise take part – as one of the organisers I hope you’ll find the welcome and the inspiration you are looking for.

  • Joining the launch of ALT Northern Ireland

    Joining the launch of ALT Northern Ireland

    I was really pleased to be able to join the launch of this new Members Group in person and if you are interested in finding out more about the work of the group, have a look at the ALT NI Twitter account who covered the day excellently.

    #ALTNI
    #ALTNI

    One of the things I reflected on in my opening keynote was the changing landscape of Learning Technology and the significance of the day, during Open Education Week, strike action and International Women’s Day.

    A big thank you to everyone involved for a really warm welcome, an inspiring day and the prospect of future collaboration.