Monthly Archives: January 2009

Notes on Ch. 12

Seale identifies six potential areas for conflict or contradiction within an organisation or activity system. What potential contradictions exist in your organisation and why?

I have observed a number of conflicts and contradictions within the FE community these include investing time, money and resources to ensure content is accessable for all or the bulk of accessibility resources are focused on those regocnised as disabled.

How helpful is it to conceptualise the development of accessibility within your organisation as an activity system?

I found the activity system model to be overly complex and confusing when applied to the accessibility of elearning within an FE environment. I feel a simpler and clearer model could be useful for analysing components and relationships related to elearning which incorpeated accessibility.
Identify three issues that are of most relevance or of most interest to you
  • Novice and expert behaviour
  • Division of labour
  • Contradictions in the elearning system

Notes on Ch.11 Game Playing

Game Playing
As part of my role as an elearning advisor, I work as part of a team to interview students and staff from colleges in order to produce a report for them outlining their “eprogress” and suggesting how they can move forward with their elearning agenda.  This report is generally used for the purpose with which it was intended, however there as been one occasion where it was clear that staff had been hand picked and prompted to only tell us the “good stuff” in order for them to receive a glowing report on how much progress the college had made.  I assume that the purpose of this was to use the glowing report as either external marketing or internally to promote the achievements of individuals to senior members of staff.  I feel that this is an example of the lengths some will go to play games.

Notes on Ch.11 Opportunities and incentives

Opportunities and incentives

Seale suggests that insentives to developing accessible elearning are in some cases a stronger driver than the stick of avoiding prosiucution.  These intensives include capturing an increased market and minimising expencies.  In the UK FE community there are a number of other intensives for developing elearning and accessible elearning.  These include better qualification results for learners, access to government funding (MoleNet, LLW) and increased independence of learners.

Week 16- Notes on Seale Ch. 11 -Rule Enforcement

Rule Enforcement

The drivers for institutional change outlined in chapter 11 can be devided into “carrots” or Sticks”.  Seale suggests that the “stick” approch of useing legislation against institutions that fail to meet accessibility reuirements is not working for a number of reasons, including a lack of institutions being prosicuted and confusion over the interpretation of rules.  I feel there is a danger that a spate of prosecutions against inaccessable elearning would lead to a barrier to the overall development of elearning within the FE community.  The fear of being prosecuted could stop teaching staff from getting started with relearning, particularly if they are not comfortable with developing their own Information Learning Technology (ILT) skills.  On the other end of the spectrum, experienced learning technologists may not be willing to develop and exploit technologies such as web 2.0, which have not been proved to meet legislation.  
At an institutional level there could be a reluctance to invest time and money in developing elearning if the potential damage of getting it wrong is worse`than doing nothing at all.
If organisations such as the RNIB and DRC are given the role of prosecuting bad elearning, this could lead to a breakdown in relationships with those institutions which most need their advice and support.