Has a ridiculously long title but will do for now. We will adapt everything based on any feedback we get. Had no real choice in staying anonymous as it’s not my platform / initiative but my colleagues have got away with it.
Anyone can sign-up and self-enrol now: http://ooc.peoples-uni.org/course/view.php?id=33
No audio/video available. It was good opportunity to consolidate and see what else has been predicted for release in 2017/18.
In summary notes:
Ethical dimensions with new technologies – education available to all (technology £s for wealthy only) and privacy / sharing and consent. Whilst each slide is separate, hardware & software interrelated and personalised/social – don’t often have one without another in use of technologies.
Exciting but barriers need monitoring. Finance for technologies – needs to be available for all not creating further division , investment in assistive technologies to ensure learners aren’t left behind. Social barriers may be reduced but at the expense of privacy, students need to feel equally comfortable about contributing and their personal profiles being shared as and where they want for learning purposes.
There are some minor content edits and structure has changed a little attached.
There may be an additional networking/partners case study but it’s good enough for road testing. We – i.e. content contributors are aware that it’s a) interaction-limited – partly deliberate due to connectivity elsewhere b) in English and c) we will soon find out if potential learners find it suitable enough to want to achieve their learning outcomes.
As an eLearning ‘person’, trainer and educator I am generally happy with review processes and I should point out that as someone once fell asleep in a training session I ran (not one I was paid to deliver and he was 80!), we will see what they think – hopefully we will get that level of honest evaluation!
Some small personal changes ongoing and more small ones imminent but hope to return to recently neglected Russian language learning next week. Then catch up with contributors for second Peoples’ Uni module later in January.
Spreadsheet of tweets with activity attached. As it’s a curated account, wouldn’t expect too much at this point as I have two other twitter accounts and fit this in as and when (which may change soon).
The most active was when Dovepress journal RT’d which resulted in higher but minimal engagement rate. Follower rate is climbing slowly albeit tiny. The last 28 days:
warning – minor philosophical rambling post
I have been asked to run an eLearning workshop loosely based around the phrase “listen very carefully I shall say this only once” from the Allo Allo sitcom used by the female local leader of the French Resistance. This fits neatly with another presentation I’m doing on technologies and learning which includes some references to adaptive learning, so why not!
Technology companies have often used the concept of learner revolution, resistance etc to promote their products where learners ‘are in control’ against the authority – traditionally teacher /lecturer. This concept is flawed and I believe a new learner underground will continue to evolve. If authorities in adaptive learning systems are algorithms, then learners will evolve but not necessarily in ways that those who write algorithms (including machine only) and those who are knowledgeable in a series of concepts would like them to evolve.
There has always been a conflict between humans who would like to explore / experiment with currently ‘hardware’, ‘software’ and those who imperialistically suggest that everything needs an algorithm in order to create a better world.
Nicholas Carr in October 2016. Where I differ significantly from Nicholas Carr is that I doubt Google’s motivations entirely.
I attempted TKD again yesterday, first time since October partly due to self-inflicted back injury. Had brief chat about stances for launching front kicks and practising Eight Section Brocade which I have only ever practised from a you tube video. Expecially the 3rd movement – separating heaven and earth:
1. Pressing Up to the Heavens with Two Hands
2. Drawing the Bow and Letting the Arrow Fly
3. Separating Heaven and Earth
4. Wise Owl Gazes Backward
5. Big Bear Turns from Side to Side
6. Punching with an Angry Gaze
7. Touching the Toes then Bending Backward
8. Shaking the Body
Excellent resource from Mike Garofalo and youtube videos from Neigong.net channel
I learnt a traditional way but for a bit of fun in a future junior class, I’ve bought six cheap 9 inch spirit levels.
We can do in pairs whilst they are holding onto the walls and the partner can watch the spirit level movement as it is placed on their partner’s horizontal(ish) bent thigh before they kick.
Surrey hills are different to Yorkshire Dales – photos don’t show but there are some quite steep ridges and decent views from the top of them, especially on clear days.
Latest version below – the case studies and EUPATI links will not work unless you have access to the site. If anyone you know wants to review these as well, please contact me to be added (email address required).
It has now been through first major content review from a couple of colleagues, one who is in pharma currently, used to work for MHRA and actively involved in EMA regulatory groups etc and one who is a current pharmacist, educator and previously on the General Pharmaceutical Council in the UK. So it’s passed the “is this a load of rubbish removed from reality” first test. One of the co-founders from People’s Uni has also done a first review and is ok with so far. A followup test will be with students of People’s Uni who can confirm whether it’s removed from reality from their cirumstances in their countries. The environmental conditions page has been reviewed and approved by environmental health colleagues who will be writing the water sanitation and environmental health module next year.
3rd & 4th reviewers are pharma colleagues who haven’t been able to review due mainly to Brexit and aftermath of June vote. So I have suggested that we soft launch as is with some of our target audience – previous alumni initially – at end of December and see if 3&4 have had a chance to input by mid January.
Outstanding work (if there were no significant changes from others)
It is still a huge amount of content and for anyone that has ever visited and run screaming from a drug regulator website for any reason, this is very difficult to avoid but hopefully the scaffolding structure will help make it more manageable. We will know soon enough from our alumni reviewers.
Planning for the environmental health module will begin in mid/late January and will be more straightforward than this module. They have agreed to write the module regardless of obtaining any funds to extend the People’s University work more formally, and there may be opportunities to explore with EurAsian colleagues. I am continuing to learn Russian so hope to be confident with basic conversation in early 2017. I am about to go and start write very basic sentences with simple nouns, verbs and adjectives and will be using part of the Christmas period to continue studying. This will mean I can write emails.
I have also spoken to my colleague who is a co-founder of People’s University and mentioned that on the pharma module we had iterated backwards without involving our target audience from the beginning but we decided that because this has been very informal development, it can still easily iterate once they have begun their review late December. If major changes come in from my external reviewers then because it is a primer and individual Moodle pages, they are relatively easy to move and edit so should hopefully not impact on the subsequent module.
After Clive’s campaign had finished in Witney, I offered to help NHA Party with setting up information governance processes for the party. At the time, the Information Commissioners Office had guidance for non-profit organisations in multiple places, but now have an excellent self-assessment toolkit:
There are some areas which are not clear for political parties which I’ll come to later but the link is a great starting place. Confidential information removed from examples below.
Whatever I did needed to be comprehensible for volunteer staff, paid staff and mix of healthcare staff, some of whom would have NHS information governance knowledge / experience, others with none. I have had to write some information governance processes and documentation for learning or online collaboration systems I’ve been involved with and I’ve also been involved in developing Information governance eLearning and working with subject matter experts. It is also expensive to sign off against ISO 9000, 27000 etc and was out of scope at the time.
I started by writing a privacy impact assessment. I informed various members of the Executive of their roles in relation to data protection and party activity, Clive especially was extremely helpful in encouraging this to happen. I contacted each member of staff (voluntary or paid) and did what might be called business process analysis – asking what they did, what they used to do it and where they stored the data. The risks are quite common to different types of organisations.
I contacted each of the technology suppliers used by NHA Party to check how they processed data and I assessed them at the time as ‘adequate’ with a gigantic ‘but’ based on the information they had provided. The ‘but’ was due to the time of the disclosures of NSA illegal data processing and the inadequacy of Safe Harbor (where companies had applied) as indicated through the Max Schrems EU judgement. As EU Data Protection legislation in consultation at the time – for the size of the organisations involved including NHA, I highlighted the risks to the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO – Clive) and Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO – Head of NHA IT) and we decided that it would be better to communicate in more detail to members about those risks and continue to investigate model clauses and agreeing information processing agreements (draft example – if I was doing again, it needs updating).
Due to the party’s size and small numbers of staff, rather than create multiple documents, I created an information asset register for the party for all known documents and included the risks and data integrity assessment. I began consultation on a local groups information asset register based on the overall IAR.
The issue that differentiates small political parties from small non-profits is that member documentation is not the same or used for the same purposes – so if you are doing a mailshot for a political party to their own members with different levels of membership, it is not specific in data protection wording / guidance so you have to assume applicability based on any relevant cases from the major political parties which have received public attention.
Before I left the party, I wrote a data breach process draft for consultation and a draft policy because I wanted to leave the party in the best position that I could, even with everything in draft, so that they could make any decisions they needed to make. I also wrote some draft training materials including igtraining. It is different working with volunteers and trying to explain standard IG concepts in a motivating way as another party volunteer myself and I had some difficult conversations that could have gone better.
There was a huge amount of documentation, laws and guidance to read but could do this again in 8 steps: