Futurelab - Flux blog » learning platform January 18, 2007
Posted by Andy Roberts in : edublog , trackbackThe glossy brochure which arrived through my door told scary stories of Personal Learning portfolios which are now being introduced in schools, later forming the basis of a lifetime psychometric profiling, not under the control of the learner but used by institutions, agencies, governments. People left to themsleves apparently, will create their own identity under the influence of peer groups which may not be considered appropriate, therefore the state should create their profile for them. Hmm.
The blog however, tells a very different story. One of the writers, Martin Owen, “gets it”.
Flux » Articles » The learning now arriving at platform…
TThe Learning Platform provision is a realisation of the dystopian view of ICT and education that Frank Webster and Kevin Robbins have warned us against since 1986. Webster and Robbins have suggested that the main thrust of application of ICT in education is an updated version of Henry Ford’s production method (neo-Fordism) to education. It maps onto a view that Ken Boston presented at a Futurelab conference that there are 3 phases to introducing ICT – first it is to use applications like word processing as a glass typewriter, in the second phase we automate our current practice. It is not until we reach a third phase do we transform your practice. Learning platforms are SO second phase.
At worst the Leaning Platform mentality is about tracking, delivery, assessment, recording… it is a production line, sausage machine vision of education. There is a paradox here. Just as we are waking up to Web 2.0 – the do-it-yourself-but-with-a-lot-of-others web we propose a highly constrained system for school. I am all for letting the computer take on a lot of the administrative load – however most learning platforms do come with a pre-defined neo-Fordist pedagogic model (even if its developers do not realise it). I am all for managed learning- but I would like to see learners doing some of the management. We already have a platform – it is a computer linked to the internet. We have an abundance of tools for working together. Interoperability comes from TCP/IP, XML and the HTML protocols. It is a point of departure to many exciting places.
The tools that are being produced for social software and web 2.0 applications develop almost organically, interoperate where needed (RSS feeds are wonderful) and respond to emerging needs. They do not try to predetermine what is needed by a platform or demand that a questionable vision of an education and training technical standard needs to be adhered to. These tools are responses to perceived user needs and vanish if they do not meet them. These systems take real advantage of the transformational power of the internet and do not propose to impose old ways of thinking onto it.
Educationists should consider embracing the small pieces , loosely joined mentality. The idea that we need an electronic learning factory is so out of touch with the real needs of our times
Yay for small pieces - cheap, fast and out of control!
is an online professional who initiated DARnet 
This is an extremely narrow-minded view of whta a learning platform can offer. Yes there are tools to manage assessment data - Are you telling me this is not important? But if you just see a learning platform as a collection of mindless second phase tools to “weigh the pig you are missing the point - Learning Platforms can use web 2.0 at it’s best and deliver exciting, creative learning that encourages a broad audience to experiment than those with a fixation with HTML protocols.
Let’s see who has real success - Those teachers developing learning experiences for a small techno-elite or those that provide broad, inspiring experiences based on effective training and a need to take everyone to a new phase of education.