This page enables you to add any other ideas you might have that don’t relate to a particular workstream. but which you think FELTAG should consider. Use the comment function to share your idea, including details of why the idea should be considered and how it relates to the work of FELTAG.
Author Archives: FELTAGadmin
Online English, Maths and ESOL
Summary: online English, Maths and ESOL workstream
This workstream focuses on how English, maths and ESOL could best be delivered online, noting in particular how innovative technologies could be used to broaden participation, increase learner persistence and lead to positive outcomes.
Draft recommendations:
- Test the effectiveness of online delivery of English, maths and ESOL courses with different learner groups and technology solutions by setting up demonstration projects
- Identify the conditions under which online basic skills provision can be scaled up
- Provide guidance and other material to support the growth of online basic skills provision within Further Education
Your views:
- What examples of online delivery of English, maths and ESOL do you think we could learn from?
- How can online learning help low-skilled adults in particular?
- What is essential for sustainable solutions in these subjects?
- Are there other related issues that should be considered?
Rate the workstream:
In your opinion, how useful are these draft recommendations on the online delivery of English, maths and ESOL ( 5 = very, 1 = not at all)?
Wildcard!
This area of work was about those unconventional or radical changes which hadn’t been considered in the workstreams. They were added by interested users via our open-access Google Drive site.
Ideas that have emerged so far:
Your views:
- Based on these wildcard proposals, which specific ideas would make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these?
- Are there other wildcard areas not considered above – or in the main workstreams – that should be proposed?
Rate the Wildcards!:
In your opinion, how useful are these wildcard suggestions (5 = very, 1 = not at all)?
Employers
Summary: Employers workstream
This workstream looked at an enhanced, future role for employers connected to the FE sector and learning technologies. It touched upon key issues around FE curricula, and better preparedness for learners as they enter the professional working environment.
Draft recommendations:
- Employers should play a more integrated role in the development and delivery of FE curricula. These employers should specify which digital skills they want. They should also use tech to connect with more FEIs and learners when giving demonstrations and talks. Identify to what extent technology can help get greater engagement of employers in the design and delivery of learning
- An innovation fund should support leading-edge apprenticeships, traineeships and internships that use a high degree of technology in their delivery
- Monetise Vocational Open Online Courses (VOOCs and VE MOOCs, Alphasat) with particular emphasis on their export potential
- Employers and FE providers should work together to scale up existing ‘best practice’ learning technology network-building
Your views:
- Building on these proposals, what specific changes to the ideas for employers are needed to make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these recommendations?
- Are there other issues relating to employers that should be considered?
Rate the employers workstream:
In your opinion, how useful are these draft recommendations on employers ( 5 = very, 1 = not at all).
Learners
Summary: Learners’ workstream
This workstream focused on enhancing the experience of all learners across the FE system using Learning Technology. Emerging themes included that learners need a framework in which to share their digital skills with FE and Skills staff as well as with other learners, and that this work should be recognised via minimum wage payments or accreditation. It was also mentioned that learners should be consulted on recommendations which would affect them – although how this could be best achieved was not determined.
In addition, the idea that all learners need digital skills to enable them to fully participate in a digital society, and that assistive technologies can provide opportunities for learning for those who might otherwise be excluded, was also widely cited in discussions.
Draft recommendations:
- Scaling up the Digital Leader: empowering learners with digital technology expertise to transform teaching and learning models through widening (public- and private-) funded participation in ‘Digital Leader’-type schemes
- Empowering the learner voice: learners should be invited through the open conversation to review FELTAG’s proposals that will most affect them, and comment
- The missing link: funding the critical medium-term research gap for FE learner and provider digital needs. Create a funding plan so key research in FE learner and provider digital trends can take place and is accompanied by an implementation strategy connected to previous developments and recommendations. Establish the ‘state of the nation’ in learner, provider, teacher, awarding bodies preparedness and abilities to make best use of learning technologies. This should help identify gaps, priorities and best approaches.
- Assistive Technology: providers must make better use of AT to improve learner outcomes
- Establish the extent to which learners of all ages are excluded from making positive use of learning technology
Your views:
- Building on these proposals, what specific changes to the ideas for learners are needed to make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these recommendations?
- Are there other issues relating to learners that should be considered?
Rate the learners’ workstream:
In your opinion, how useful are these draft recommendations on learners ( 5 = very, 1 = not at all).
Capacity and capability of providers
Summary: Capacity and capability of providers workstream
This workstream focused on the capacity and capability of providers in relation to their use of learning technologies across Further Education. Its themes included the idea that a provider self-assessment tool could be developed to benchmark providers’ capability and skills use and application of learning technology and identify opportunities for improvement.
Another stream of thinking was for a set of products for FE leadership teams, including governors, to increase their understanding of the educational benefits for their learners and to develop their own knowledge and awareness of the opportunities open to them, including tools to evaluate investment decisions in learning technology hardware and software.
Draft recommendations:
- Wanted: FE governors, leaders, tutors and teachers for the Digital Age – an online offer to professionalise leaders’, managers’ and teachers’ use of learning technology in the FE sector, building on the best current models
- Curriculum planning and design: Ofsted to inspect a new learning technology strand in the Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategy. All providers should have a learning technology strand in the Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategy. This will be backed up by Ofsted’s recognition of the value of learning technology in their inspections
- Celebrate success: identify and publicise top examples of learning tech innovation, scale up and reward the most effective and innovative ways in which technology is used in pedagogy, and develop the award landscape for providers and learners, such as kitemarking the best providers (open badges, sponsorship and prizes) to encourage and reward innovation
- Strengthen support of the FE sector’s use of learning technologies by (among others) targeting the use of JISC’s RSCs to underpin the implementation of FELTAG recommendations
- Think through change: create a plan to identify the best ways to make use of learning technology research (see the recommendation in the Learners’ workstream)
Your views:
- Building on these proposals, what specific changes to the ideas for providers are needed to make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these recommendations?
- Are there other issues relating to providers that should be considered?
Rate the Capacity and capability of providers workstream:
In your opinion, how useful are these draft recommendations on providers (5 = very, 1 = not at all).
Investment and capital infrastructure
Summary: Investment and capital infrastructure workstream
This workstream identified how Investment and capital infrastructure might enable all providers within the FE system to use Learning Technology (LT) more effectively and support learners. Key themes include:
– Ensuring that each FEI has sufficient bandwidth for its needs and a robust, backed-up connection;
– Exploiting opportunities for low-cost collective licence, shareable online content;
– Standardising IP agreements for FE & Skills sector to develop innovation.
Draft recommendations:
- Common principles for a common purpose: Government, Agencies and FE providers should agree principles for investment in learning technology and ensure that investment is aligned to the wider development of the sector. Investment should only occur where these agreed principles are met
- A case for investment: ICT-related FE projects requesting public funds must set out how the investment will enhance teaching capability and how the investment will be implemented (milestones, personal accountability etc); ICT investment must also require that teachers and support staff understand how to get the best out of the new equipment and software
- Fast and robust: Each FEI should have enough bandwidth for its needs and a robust connection. Dependancy on the Internet for education and all aspects of business use is increasing, as is demand for greater bandwidth. Both aspects underpin the sector’s ICT
- SMT and Board of Governors members must be personally accountable for the high-quality delivery of all aspects of their institution’s learning technology. ICT must be recognised as an essential part of all aspects of each FE institution, not simply as a ‘bolt-on’ but is an integral part of all developments
- Past their shelf life: ensure regulatory rules for capital investment keep pace with technology. Rules on the use of capital funds are outdated and do not reflect technological developments. For example, cloud computing and online software (such as Office 365) are not being fully exploited due to current rules, irrespective of value for money
- Licence to Thrill: exploit opportunities for low-cost collective licence, shareable online content
- Standardise IP agreements for the FE and Skills sector to enhance innovation. IPR is complex and legal advice is costly. Developing standard sets of agreements and advice could de-mystify IPR and make significant savings and lead to greater commercialisation of ed tech (increased exports and/or inward investment)
- Avoiding derailment: TSB/JISC to collaboratively deliver greater support to ed tech innovation to address the poor track record in the UK of commercialising ed tech. Focus on the ‘valley of death’ stage between innovation and monetisation. Get FEIs to drive ed tech innovation by asking ed tech businesses to identify tailored solutions to their specific problems
- Snow Days: FEIs and other providers to allow sufficient time for key staff to think creatively about using LT. Increasing ICT use imposes demands on ICT support staff and may limit their ability to keep abreast of new technologies or to think strategically. Could JISC’s RSCs coordinate interested organisations and discuss ideas with providers setting aside term days to address this
Your views:
- Building on these proposals, what specific changes to investment and capital infrastructure are needed to make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these recommendations?
- Are there other issues relating to investment and capital infrastructure that should be considered?
Rate the investment workstream:
In your opinion, how useful are these draft recommendations on investment ( 5 = very, 1 = not at all).
Funding
Summary: Funding workstream
This workstream identified how funding mechanisms might enable all providers within the FE system to use Learning Technology more effectively and support learners. Key themes included removing barriers and disincentives for new Learning Technology providers to the regulated and funded FE training system, and ensuring overall goals and therefore success measures of funding (and regulation) system are regularly updated to take account of relevant, new learning technologies.
Draft recommendations:
- Ensure the funding system is fit-for-purpose: establish a regulatory and funding system that fully supports the adoption of new technologies and learning methods, one that challenges and adapts its quality and success measures to ensure its benchmark is the FE sector’s leading edge
- Level the funding playing field: remove barriers and disincentives for new entrants to the regulated and funded ‘FE’ training provider system
Your views:
- Building on these proposals, what specific changes to funding are needed to make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these recommendations?
- Are there other issues relating to funding that should be considered?
Rate the funding workstream:
In your opinion, how useful are these draft recommendations on funding ( 5 = very, 1 = not at all).
Regulation
Summary: Regulation workstream
This workstream identified how regulatory mechanisms might enable all providers within the FE system to use Learning Technology (LT) more effectively and support learners. Key themes included support for increased online assessment methods and increased awareness of optimal uses of LT to develop awarding industry’s confidence in using, assessing and quality-assuring LT. Another key area that emerged was to increase the evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of technologies deployed by providers.
Draft recommendations:
- The regulation system should fully support the adoption of new technologies and learning methods, challenging and adapting its quality and success measures in accordance with the leading edge in the FE sector. It should ensure that this is reflected in measures used by Ofqual, SFA and Ofsted and that the change is communicated in a clear and high-profile way to ensure it is fully understood and adopted in the sector
- Develop and deliver pilot courses of study linked to regulated qualifications that maximise the appropriate use of technology in learning and assessments. Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB) and Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) should work with Ofqual and others to increase awareness of optimal uses of learning technologies and develop confidence to use them in assessment and quality assurance across the awarding industry
- Ensure that the Ofqual review of the regulation of Vocational Qualifications 1 and other associated regulatory developments supports the use of technology in teaching, learning and assessment of regulated qualifications and that it allows awarding organisations working with providers, employers and learners to develop qualifications and assessments that make best use of technology. Develop a definition of Guided Learning Hours that supports and does not inhibit the use of learning technology in the delivery of qualifications
- Ofsted should take on an enhanced role in evaluating the quality and effectiveness of technologies deployed by providers. Comprehensive training of Ofsted inspectors will enable them to identify good practice and evaluate the effectiveness of deployed learning technologies. Develop, in collaboration with Ofsted and FE stakeholders, means by which the evaluation of learning technologies can be given more emphasis in inspection; include the development of plans for the use and implementation of technology by providers which inspectors can review
- Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) should set up Learning Technology Innovation Groups, consisting of FE providers, employers and other stakeholders to support and champion local use of learning technologies. Pilot innovation groups to champion the uptake of learning technologies and demonstrate how changes can have a positive impact on outcomes for learners
- Require FE providers, universities and industry to collaboratively develop up-to-date and relevant professional development and initial/early training for managers, teachers and trainers aimed specifically at improving their knowledge of, and confidence in using learning technologies
Your views:
- Building on these proposals, what specific changes to regulation are needed to make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these recommendations?
- Are there other issues relating to regulation that should be considered?
Rate the regulation workstream:
In your opinion, how useful are these draft recommendations on regulation ( 5 = very, 1 = not at all).
Horizon scanning and context
Summary: Horizon scanning and context workstream
This workstream produced an externally-commissioned issue-mapping and risk-scanning report on learning technology in FE. It also produced an FE learner and management opinion survey. Findings included:
- Understanding the FE/VET sector as a learning system is important as globalisation and technological change are driving turbulent change that requires increased variation and experimentation in our FE system
- Teaching practitioners are more curious than fearful of technology and are using a wide range of products and digital technologies in their practices
- Lack of strategic direction among providers results in fragmentation of practice
- Lack of headroom to support innovation and risk-taking, even where funding may be available in the sector, means providers generally leave innovation to others
- Staff not encouraged to use or upgrade their use of technology results in many focusing their use of tech simply on mandated administrative processes
Your views:
- Building on these findings, what specific changes related to horizon-scanning are needed to make the biggest difference to you?
- Can you suggest any good mechanisms for achieving these recommendations?
- Are there other issues relating to horizon-scanning that should be considered?
Rate the horizon scanning and context workstream:
In your opinion, how relevant are the findings from the horizon-scanning workstream ( 5 = very, 1 = not at all).