Recapping: We have already had two sessions on digital education which have focused on the blue-sky possibilities for education because of the coming NBN, and then the reality check – what might get in the way. My general conclusion about these sessions was that there were no big ideas, really, because a lot of what the NBN brings is not NEW, but just scalable and increased reach, enabling everyone to get it. The reality check also indicated that the problem might be the overemphasis on technology, whereas policy and structure and systems are the issue. So what will be the next steps?

Access and equality are very important issues for education in the imagined future of high-speed connectivity. Education is deeply about social advantage, building opportunity for all. One of the important opportunity factors: teachers are not given the opportunities in the classroom to utilise technologies well. Technologies used outside the classroom (flickr, messenger, etc) work, they work for her, and they are centred on her. Technologies like this used in the classroom are not available, not easily available, or have different kinds of access requirements. (This supports some of my ideas in the LINK project – bring education into the world of the Internet, not bring Internet into classroom).

The next steps appear to emphasise the professional development of, and support for, teachers to become sophisticated users (in part by bringing to the classroom their own tech skills); but, without the reliable excellent access of broadband, this cannot be done scalable and efficiently – training would not work for all, and many would be frustrated.

Some lessons to be learned from ICT and learning in higher education (thanks Tom Cochrane from QUT!):

• Unis made mistakes – they thought ICTs would deinstitutionalise them and change them; and they thought they could monetise content – both wrong
• what worked was the use of technologies to solve existing curricular problems in ways not able to be done without technology – eg simulations
• what also worked was the development of e-research (but bringing with it new problems of lack of literacy for high-quality researchers).

. What are the next steps, based on Cochrane’s reading of the development of ICTs and universities?

1. reformation of curriculum to match changes in other sectors
2. improvement of capability development among academics
3. definition and refinement of new pedagogical applications and tools
4. importance of connectedness with international communities of students
5. tackle the legal and regulatory blockages to education

Wilson, NSW CIO of Education – demonstrates that many important steps are already being taken in terms of systems and technology. He would identify the challenge of “shared vision” parents, admin, teachers etc. He identifies political and moral conflicts of “acceptable use” as a major hurdle. He points to the challenges of media scar reporting and the impact that it has on politicians.

I would, therefore, conclude that one of the infrastructures to be built, along with the pipes, wires, and so on, is the cultural infrastructure of acceptance and curiousity and enthusiasm about the exploration and use of the online environment. Such cultural infrastructure would involve empowerment of students, and the adoption of a more robust libertarian approach which is, indeed, the culture of the net.

The next steps, listening to the speakers, sound quite a lot like jumps over complex hurdles and through difficult obstacle courses.

Smarr, Conroy, Thomas, Tucker and McDonald

Larry Smarr, CITIT
NBN best example of inventing in the future of the country; uses the standard rhetoric: “level playing field”, “global environment”, “citizens competing”; like one of the speakers yesterday (Cole) compares Australia and USA with Australia better. “Have early working prototypes” of the applications; it will take “a lot of working through” to get to the next level. “We are at the end of a long era, the era of copper”. This future-proofs the network. Points to the role AARNET might play, because AARNET is working at 100 x the speed of the NBN.

Stephen Conroy, Min DBCDE
Conroy starts with the selling job. Characterises the critics as those who think we already have broadband, or that the market should just sort it out. Compares them to people who criticised the introduction and expansion electricity networks by government in the 19th and 20th century. Public role of government is to build a platform, onto which the market then builds applications. Refers back to the conference: what day 1 shows is that the future of high-speed broadband is not just downloading movies faster. It’s about education, health and so on. Picks up on the economic benefits; the community benefits etc.

Key message: investing in broadband is about investing in health, education, regional centres, energy efficiency and so on. It will be “Australia’s first national open-access wholesale only..network”. “we remain confident it will work on a commercial basis”. Critics are wrong for just not seeing the vast array of flow-on social and economic benefits. The return on the wholesale network will be more like a utility return, NOT like that of a vertically integrated market. Case is “compelling” and “encompassing” -[new word! encompassing!]. It is very strongly linked to globalisation and international competition, according to Conroy. (Which then is referenced to the 16th location, and 3rd most expensive data from OECD).

“Despite the myth, high-speed broadband is not accessible to all Australians”. Cites telstra exec – 50%+ cannot get 12 Mbs in Australia. Also emphasises the fact that the Internet generates major advantages for regional areas – and yet that is precisely the area of Australia least well-served by current infrastructure (backs up this argument by discussing how Tasmania is poorly served).

Abigail Thomas, ABC
“What difference will the NBN make in our everyday lives?” she asks. “What will ordinary people be doing? How will they get their information? How will they entertain themselves?”. New media bring something new, but build on past media. Uses the analogy of filmmaking – started out as ‘film a performance on a stage’ (new+old); then became something different (new+new). Explores these ‘new things’ via some examples and innovations in new media, showing how media will be very important for the NBN but not media as we know it. Essentially, the presentation makes clear that media will drive NBN takeup but not just movie and TV watching / downloading – more interactive experiences such as multi-story line TV (‘cubic’ TV), multimedia-style presentations of historical documentary (for school research) AND, more importantly, has democratising upload possibilities far in advance of what we see just emerging now. The emphasis here is on user control – eg non-linear, or self-created, or game-style choice oriented, or collaborative online.

Tucker and McDonald
Marketing of homeloans discussion.

Interesting history of Aussie Homeloans interaction with new media for marketing – showing from 1995 through to now. 2002 – company had bad brochureware website (and didn’t even own domain name!) “but it didn’t matter”. 2007 – “awakening” at Aussie to realise how significant the networked digital environment might be. They realised 28% of business coming from online; but only 18% actually completed the website process. So had to have a digital strategy.

Commentary

There’s now a link between the NBN and new (different) ways of working. earlier rhetoric around broadband was similar, but I think there has been a shift now to emphasising that we can’t know what happens next, but that we must change. Climate change is probably the main difference now between this rhetoric and early 2000s

Conroy’s speech is a very finely tuned pitch, not to the audience (one imagines they are already convinced), but to ‘the people’, via the media who will no doubt report it. It identified the criticisms which are most likely to be launched and then answers them. It also makes two significant interventions. First, it emphasises that the return on investment for NBN is utility / wholesale business, and NOT comparable to a retail / vertically inttegrated company (such as telstra). This move implies that there will be cost savings in the lower profits to be made, in the long run. The second intervention, which is apparent yesterday also, is to de-couple the NBN from specific applications and services. Just as the NBN will be a layer-2, non-service foundation, on which the market builds competing and specific applications, so too, the argument FOR the NBN relies now on the claim that the specific applications (health, business, education etc) will come from the market, because of the level-playing field of the wholesale network. This logic is astute, if a little vague, because it completely undercuts the ‘but exactly what is it for?’ counter-arguments. These arguments are still interesting, but they are ruled out of the specific debate about the NBN; the arguments are now emphasising the broader, infrastructural issues.

Thomas, from ABC, presents a sophisticated argument through simple narratives – stories of imaginary characters. Is this what is missing? There has been insufficient imagining of the future from the perspective of the everyday user – too much ‘gee whizzery’ and talk of economics and nation building. Does the argument for NBN need to fill the gap between the political spinspeak and the everyday desires of the audience? How can we create the ‘audience’ for the NBN – that is, the people who invest in it desires and dreams and seek pleasure through their sense of ‘being’ this audience regardless of what they actually?

Contrasting NBN arguments from technologists vs those of Thomas’ media oriented presentation: people are already very familiar with the idea of remote, electronic entertainment and will readily accept and explore new versions and indeed contribute to their creation. however, there is still a strong ’sense of presence’ around things like health and education (especially children’s education) which makes it a lot harder to convince individuals of the benefits of telepresence in these spheres, even though people happily involve themselves in online transactions like banking. I would argue that media will be the uptake driver for broadband – but, as Thomas says – just not media as we know it

Big reality check: Aussie Home Loans example shows that business (a large business, with a lot of online business – 28%) didn’t realise until 2007 (!!) that online marketing and selling was critical to its business and that old-style websites didn’t work and that the whole strategy needed to change. Even in a business that is entrepreneurial, digital marketing took a while to take off.

The MCEECDYA Program of reporting, National Assessment Program: Information and Communication Technology Literacy, provides evidence about the literacy of students. The 2008 report, not yet available publicly, shows that students in Years 6 and 10 of Australian schooling are not involved in a lot of “creating, analysing, and transforming” of information via online tools (what I would term cognitive uses of the web) and are primarily interested in using the net for chatting and searching for information. It will be interesting to compare this report (which is clearly in the social media period – 2008) with the previous report, from 2005.

Discussion of research infrastructure: main question – what is the interface with NBN given that the emerging Australian research network is already a lot faster and so on than the NBN? I am wondering if this is relevant to NBN – in the same way thet BHP Billiton builds its specialised network, so too would the Australian research community. It perhaps suggests that we need to be thinking about ‘networks’ not just the NBN.

An excellent presentation of problems in school:
Six key points

• Old models + new tech not solution

• No leveraging of open systems
• Risk management needed (not risk aversion)
• Personalised learning
• Costs are increasing
• importance of gatekeeping

See how the problem set is formed at the intersection of multiple domains of control and expertise – technologists, managers, teachers all work at different angles to the central problem and sometimes don’t have sufficient interaction. (Raju Varanasi – good presentation, from NSW Centre for Learning Innovation). And, the solution to this interaction matter is policy. Infrastructure is not the issue – it is policy.

A summary of the ‘reality check’ on digital education. The reality check is: don’t focus on the technology, think policy, professional development, cultures of use, legal matters AND students themselves. Technology gets in the way, if it is made the centrepiece; it should be invisible.

“the problem with students is that their life and learning will be going down a different [digital network] track” – they will choose this path because it is part of themselves and identity, so if schools don’t change students will not be engaged. (Watson, The Learning Federation)

Education is a very contested zone of debate since it involves the attempt to manage the future very directly by creating the people OF the future (our school students). Visions, hopes and fears get played out through the way people characterise the school system. Moreover, education is one of the remaining obvious places where the experts tend to be derided (teachers vs parents, bureaucrats). It is also a place where control strategies get explored and demanded, principally on the basis of the failure of children to be adult enough.

Realising Our Broadband Future
digital education stream

Very large bandwidth to big school, computers for everyone, digital resources are the focus (Moo, CIO, NT)

Watching a terrible Microsoft glossy promo video: does this company not realise how bad these things look? Sure, it’s a ‘vision’ not reality, but what it assumes is a class infrastructure – 100% middleclass. Plus the sort of ‘perfection’ they imagine for devices and software is, to be honest, just a wee bit farfetdched given M’Soft’s record on such things. Oh wait, maybe this is a glimpse into the 23rd century.

Part of the problem here is that technologists assume (as always) that the technology solves the problems. That the technology is what’s missing to make education better. Equally, there is a kind of rationalist determinism here, too, hidden in the technological determinism: computer science sees the problems as ones of knowledge and information and data, that there is always a rational answer to a human need which will appear, in the modern mode, if only it can be addressed.

Equally, some of the Microsoft hyperbole fails to account for the way teachers have already implemented the underlying pedagogic and other ideas which are apparently ‘allowed’ by technology, without that technology. Clearly, some technologies improve and extend and make easier some pedagogic approaches, but the experimentation comes from the teachers and students in action, from which a technology need emerges.

There continue to be significantly outdated ideas about education from many people, especially senior bureaucrats and technologists. These people imagine education is like it used to be. However education has moved on and some of the problems which the technology is meant to solve have already been solved or are simply not there any more. At the same time, some problems remain – systemic problems caused by time, space, age of children, the nature OF the system. These problems might be better seen as problems of the school system itself – they cause technology to ‘fail’ because technology is not designed for such uses. (NSW CIO of Ed talks about hotswappable computers if it breaks, just have another).

Schooling has to include, for many good social reasons, the collocation of people into places at specific times. This should not be forgotten. But the Internet, when fast enough and wide enough, enables those locations to connect to other locations in a manner that allows distributed activities to solve scale and reach problems (Hagen, CIO, Qld Education). “Build the damn thing and get out of the way”.

Certain issues, like health and education, are framed by political debate to demand attention to equity and equality of access and opportunity, especially where they relate to the spatial location of users etc. From some perspectives, innovation almost demands inequality – it has to be leading edge and thus mostly unaccessible, not usable or apparently not relevant to the majority. From the teachers’ perspective – the innovation comes from below and thus the system’s insistence on equity impedes.

I also reflect on the way education is seen as being in a problematic state – falling behind some presumed state of required competence in, learning through and exploitation of digital connectivity. Asking if broadband infrastructure can solve this, or similar, doesn’t really ask the right question. The problems is as much caused by the ‘transitional state’ we all live in – caught between pre-digital and digital worlds; our awareness of this transitional state is as much the cause of ‘the problem’ as problems themselves. This does not mean we need do nothing: but first we need to recognise what the real problems are.

Second session of the 2009 Australian Govermment summit on broadband, http://broadbandfuture.gov.au, featuring Craig Mundie (Microsoft), Vint Cerf and David King (Google), Samantha Hannah-Rankin (Auspost), Nick Gruen (Gov 2.0).

Mundie, Microsoft

Broadband access is not simply about infrastructure but also inspiring social and economic innovations. Discusses the way devices are going to change and become embedded in our everyday life, through user interfaces involving gestures, facial signals and so on – “entirely new relationship between computers and people… pervasive and intuitive system that works on your behalf”. [A relatively underwhelming piece of gee-whizzery]

Vint Cerf, Google and Father of Internet

Investment in NBN needs to be carefully managed – not just edge connectivity, but more impact at core and the backhaul. Cerf emphasises the importance of end-to-end principle and the requirement to avoid constraints within the system once a person gets access. Cerf calls it “permissionless innovation”. Also bear in mind that we need to help people to see why they should use the new ideas which might flow, potentially, from the new infrastructure. Cerf comments on the lack of competition within the USA – Australia’s approach is “quite stunning” in separating the network from the services. “new kinds of competitive applications” can emerge without constraints. Cerf notes that high-speed widespread networks enable Australia to connect economically much more easily with the rest of the world, not just within Australia. Ponders that there might be multiple and different fibres passing or near premises. Cerf sees this as a benefit, not a problem.

David King, Google (You Tube)
Why talk about YouTube in this kind of forum? Great case study of what more bandwidth can do. YT is good for culture and politics, media and moneymaking. Note the importance of link to other technologies – cameras are cheaper now, easier.

YT is growing steadily. Example of business link: marketing of music via videos. But, more than that, YT creates new business – people want to put music into their OWN videos and the originator of the music shares in the revenue when this happens, as well as adverts to sell. Example: home film maker puts short demo up on YT, ends up getting major studio contract to turn demo into real film.

Reach: – global audience like no other platform (eg Sarah Boyle 300 million views = #1 on album charts)
Rights: – scalable, automated, choice-laden system for video management (inlcluding archive of video!)
Research: – people can understand who and when and where people watch videos. (e.g. Mr Bean popular in Saudi Arabia, discovered this via YT)
Revenue: – 38% of media consumed online, 9% of ad revenue

Hannah-Rankin, Australia Post
AusPost view – NBN establishes capacity for digital services the same as traditional postal analog services (security, confidence, etc of communication). Need to establish familiarity among consumers and services so they know why and how to use NBN. Auspost is about equality of access.. everyone can use it; trying to bring a similar apporoach into the future via the NBN.

H-R claims we move from massification from customisation, classic link of postmodernity and IT as the sequel to modernity.

[H-R utilises standard language re interoperability, unlocking potential value, confidence, synergy and so on: this is part of the problem. The language of 'IT implementation' is not the language of politics, culture or real business, even though we depend ON that language]

“Compelling consumer-centric solutions”

Gruen

Simple definition of Web 1.0 – email and website (point to point) – vs Web 2.0 – multi-channel and networks. Emphasises that Web 2.0 is NOT fancy technology. What broadband brings is “higher speeds and ubiquity”. What is Web 2.0? “I’s about culture change” (Draws on O’Reilly).

See The Government 2.0 Taskforce reports at : http://gov2.net.au/

• Collaborate
• Improvise
• Share
• Play
• users build value
• be modular
• Build for value, monetise later

- this stuff makes government VERY nervous.

Before 2000, Gruen says as an economist, that he thought governments built public goods. But, in Web 2.0, the private sector builds public goods [well, you might say THAT about the internet!]. So government needs to catch up to this approach.

“Organisation without organisations”

“low-cost social formations”

“low-cost experimentation and startup”

“turbocharge the market for reputation”

Key point – identity needs to be STABLE. We don’t need to know WHO you are, we need to know you are the same person you were before and will be in future. And, once we start to get identity stable, online, then reputation can be built, attached to identity

A final key point from Gruen re Government 2.0 work: it’s about data, of which we have masses, visualised in new ways, leading to understanding, acceptance and so on. I would add that the visualisation and management of data involves the need for lots of bandwidth – which further provides an reason for NBN not previously or commonly discussed.

Brad Wearn, CIO BHP
Presents case study on BHP Billiton’s use of broadband comms within their massive Pilbara operation. Straightforward discussion of infrastructure re railroad control system. Like a mini version of NBN since it includes fixed and mobile.

Commentary

An array of presentations, all of which appear to be part-advertisement for the the business behind them, part advertisement for the possibilities of broadband, and show a diversity of ways of addressing the possible audience. Microsoft: a smoke and mirros performance that owes more to science fiction than the realities of social change; YouTube: a presentation that embodies why YT is successful – clear and precise and in the language of the audience; Australia Post: presentation laden with biz-speak from the IT sector which, fundamentally, is a plea for relevance from a threatened organisation…or is that too harsh?

Gruen is such a literate and capable analyst of and proponent of Web 2.0 and its relationship with governance. His linking of the economics of public goods to the development of Web 2.0 style architectures and systems (the private is the public, reversing the way that the public tried to become private) is critical to grasping the entry of the internet into mainstream. Many internet commentators have been saying for years that the internet is explicable as privately created and owned public goods; now this idea enters the mainstream. He also is fearless to utilise the government’s own failings (eg in copyright of goivernment documentation) to demonstrate the change needed.

It is often difficult to extract from the presentations the precise reason why they speak to the need for NBN, except insofar as the NBN achieves some other aspects of Internet accessibility rather than the obvious one of speed. In fact, they are starting to suggest to me that the emphasis on speed is irrelevant – it’s about access, first of all; it’s about reliability and soiphistication in the infrastructure; it’s about competition to drive services, not supply of access; it’s about the transition to the ‘ubiquitous utility’ model. Sure, speed matters in relation to some aspects, but there are deeper cultural matters here.

Should we also be considering the diversity of uses as including fundamentally different things? There is a strong move at the moment to try and aggregate many kinds of use (games, business services, ehealth etc) into a single whole – similar to the claim of the entirety of “social computing” in recent EU report – to claim the need for NBN. But, realistically, we know the Internet is now like a road system with 100s of lanes, moving in concert but sometimes not interconnected – it’s not a single superhighway but a dense twisted set of layers and tunnels and so on. From a technical perspective, no problem with aggregated; from a selling / managing perspective – we need multiple messages to different kinds of users. (Comment sparked by Wearn’s comment re latency).

Opening session of the 2009 Australian Govermment summit on broadband, http://broadbandfuture.gov.au, featuring Kevin Rudd, Mike Quigly (NBN) and Jeffrey Cole (Annenburg, USC).

Paul Twomey, ICANN, opens the forum: “we are using Web 2.0 tools throughout the forum” to encourage particiation both at the event and elsewhere. Stephen Conroy, Min DBCDE welcomes delegates: plenty of hype around the critical importance of NBN

Kevin Rudd, PM
(Full text of speech)
Economic strategy is a key point: for today and the future. The NBN is linked to that strategy. Rudd frames the summit by reminding us of the global financial crisis. Describes the NBN as “core infrastructure” for the new century like rail (19th) and roads (20th). Links the NBN to sustainability, but also emphasises health and education and the advantage for all Australians.

“The reality is that our current broadband…is not up to scratch”; “slow broadband is holding us back” “Australians want fast broadband”. Uses the rhetoric of international competition “we are even behind the Slovak Republic”. Notes 18 failed plans for broadband in 12 years before the Rudd Government elected. “This is like building the Snowy Mountain Scheme, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the national road network” – it’s about confidence in the future. “It is a massive task”. It is the work of government, because of this fact.

Potential to “transform our economy”, “transform many aspects of our lives”. Fast broadband is the answer to global communication, to regional disadvantage, to 24/7 businesses, to enabling advantages throughout Australia. “Plug our nation fully into the global economy”. It’s about addressing challenges in the future – climate change, ageing, city congestion. “Our national broadband policy is not just about communications policy…It is about the whole way government meets the needs of people”. Emphasises in particular greenhouse gas reduction, principally through telepresence technology to reduce travel; also smart metering of the electricity grid.

“What excites me about broadband is the applications that none of us have thought of yet”. It’s about new trade opportunities (access to global markets), smart business practices; it will create jobs now and into the future. NBN underpins innovation to create jobs across “every part of our economy”. Cost savings – eg paper, time, etc – and new growth at less cost.

Rudd then announces several innovative projects relating to health, emergency management, education all of which tend to focus on rural and regional disadvantage. Summarises the current progress on NBN – planning, testing in Tasmania, the new regional backbone development recently announced. Legislation for structural reform – more competition, innovation and protection for

Moves to the Goverment 2.0 agenda. “While the internet is the citizen’s most important point of contact with government, it is largely a passive engagement”; Gov 2.0 is to be about ‘listening’ to those using public services to improve them (eg “it’s buggered mate”); also about accountability. Calls on government to accept and embrace. Rudd website now includes comments and webchat, for example. “Accessible, transparent, accountable”. “Digital inclusion” for remote and regional – uniquely needed in Australia with its dispersd population and large area.

“Wider Australian Digital Community” called upon to participate: conference now opened.

Quigly, NBN co CEO
(great slides for this talk, with graphics of key points – pdf file).
3 objectives for NBN High speed; competitive level playing field; do this cost effectively. Achieve them transparently and accountable. Technical design, financial plan (with McKinsey) and project plan Supports the dual stream approach – NBN more focused on technologies; McKinsey-KPMG financials.

Two key questions:

• Why 100 MBits/sec? Cisco predicts, by 2013, 500% increase in the traffic over global networks based on the increased resolution of screens and power of computers to support massive data traffic. Nice graph showing, if we don’t go to 100, then we assume downstream traffic speed will level off from historical growth from 1990s.

• Why not all wireless?Cisco research = fixed line traffic will dwarf mobile. Laws of physics cannot be broken – limits in spectrum, will run out of tweaks of the wireless technology, but mostly, it’s about the increased number of cells available for mobile transmission. And, how does data get OUT of the cells? Fibre. Moreover, if we have to build many more cells, then this is likely to be just as expensive. Also notes the very low AVERAGE speeds of wireless because of sharing. Note too the problems of being at the edge of the cell – which can reduce single-user speeds by a factor of 10-20. Wireless still important, but it is not the only solution.

Critical importance of equivalent access across system to ensure competition. How? Fibre-based wholesale service…connects premises to points of interconnect via Layer-2 ethernet (layer 1 = passive optical), nothing above layer 2 which is for ISPs and others – BOTH wholesalers and retailers – covering services and application. Logical separation of streams to enable endusers to choose multiple providers of services; technology for maximum efficiency of bitstream. Note – layer 2 = access QoS, but not service QoS.

Quigly explains NBN relationship with ISPs backhaul etc. – Critical point – NBN is NOT going above layer 2, and will mainly focus on fibre from premises to Points of Interconnect. only where there is a single backhaul provider to a PoI will NBN then aggregate traffic from that PoI and haul it to another one where there is competitive backhaul provision. Essentially, the NBN will be putting in backhaul mainly in regional areas (as indeed NextGen is already starting to do); in well served areas, it will be focusing on fibre to the home/premises. Small footprint in the overall value chain. “Plumbers” of the network – everything else by other people.

Key is the suite and pricing of products; to cover both legacy and future applications and services.

Future proofing for further technology improvements.

One major building issue: the civil works involved in placing cables and equipment that supports cable. CLaims that the data needed to absolutely settle on a business plan (eg pricing) is not available – it’s such a complex business and many variables.

91% of premises served by roadside teclo pillars; (8% of land area). Remaining 9% = rural and served by radio or direct copper from exchange.

Cole, USC Annenberg

There is a bigger gap between dialup and broadband than between no access and dialup. BB changes the world “like nothing we have ever seen except the printing press and electricity”. What are some of the early changes from dialup

Dialup – households – 2-3 times a day, 20-30 minutes at a time. logging on was a big deal, we aggregated our tasks and did them en masse at one time. Time was focused ON the internet and its use, not on as many local interactions (eg with family). People wanted to be undisturbed. But, broadband – from 2002-3 – people were on 30-50 times a day, but for 2-3 minutes at a time. There was no aggregation of tasks, no scheduling. The internet is not in the background now, but integrated into our lives, where we were in life. Broadband moves the internet into the centre stage [what evidence? see http://www.digitalcenter.org/]. This has also got something to do with wireless, however. The changes broadband enacts are changes in how and when we do things involving online activity.

Broadband is not a threat to TV in the same way dialup is. “It’s the best friend TV ever had”. But… newspapers? No. teenagers are interested in the news – more so than any time in last 70 years. But just not from newspapers. When net penetration hits 30%, newspaper sales decline. (Annenberg research). So news has to be online, constantly updated – broadband is the only way for news institutions to survive since they are so much more readable and immediate. [Not sure these assertions are sustainable given the changes in the nature of the media - feels like a re-run of 'put the newspaper online in 1980s-1990s].

Cole moves onto more sustainable ground when he moves into discussion of interaction and user-generated content – especially saying don’t forget upload speed and limits, particularly in the era of video creation.

Key points – uploading is vital “democractic part of broadband”; younger people have grown up with internet and, increasingly, growing up with broadband; collaboration is the absolute essential component of broadband; cites some research showing people who went back to dialup from broadband were shattered to discover that whole parts of the net they were used to using had become unusable.

We know that we have the right kind of broadband when we stop talking about speed etc, and the system just does what you want and only noticeable when it is not there (like electricity). Always on, always there is the goal.

Commentary

Note the change in rhetoric around NBN to include current issues such as climate change which were far less significant earlier; similarly, the emphasis on short-term jobs which did not matter prior to the GFC. I also believe there is a deeper emphasis now on the economic dimensions of the NBN, even though Rudd also says that NBN is not ‘communications’ policy, but policy across all areas of government. The political aspects are also clear: note the reference to Howard government failures on broadband; look at the appeal to rural and, especially, regional voters utilising the NBN as a mechanism to articulate the ‘whole of Australia’ position by the government. Note also the linking of other digital initiatives (Government 2.0) which, largely, are independent of broadband development, to the NBN – creating an all-encompassing ‘we are the digital government’ image.

Reflect on the notion of ‘revolution’ and change of state. Why is NBN not understood as incremental change? How does it fit with the actual history of incrementalism over past 15 years? Is the promising of NBN’s radical potential ever going to be realised because, fundamentally, it will not be experienced as a radical phase shift?

Cole’s presentation is an important statement about the radical changes involved in internet use, especially as experienced by younger users who are the future (note link to Rudd’s future rhetoric). What is interesting is that he discussed what people are doing now online and have been for 4-5 years as part of promoting a network for the future. The real fact to take away from this presentation is that we can’t easily predict what people will do online in 10 years given that noone was really expecting the whole social media craze in the 1990s.

[Discovering the difficulty of jumpong between twitter and blogging: need to learn to use RSS feed from my twitter stream! Raises the question: how the hell can students and academics keep up with the opportunities when so much changes, so rapidly? It requires a remaking of the everyday business of knowledge work - eg do I read that article or learn RSSing twitter]

Summary of morning session

Several things emerge from this morning discussion which focused on seven broad groups of technologies (see website above):

• further evidence of significant differences in how people understand the term Web 2.0, even while recognising its useful role to open debate and create interest in new approaches to teaching.

• a degree of scepticism about ’standards’ for judging student work – enthusiasm and interest in the publicness of assessment that is possible via the Internet, utilising the public audience as a way of assessment
• competing and contrasting assumptions about the social nature of technology – environment or tool? Clear that ‘how’ we use technologies in learning is governed by these assumptions
• one difference depending on what counts as Web 2.0 is the time it might take to ‘do’ or ‘use’ it: eg twitter vs vodcasting
• if Web 2.0 is, to some extent, a move to collaboration, how does this fit with the university’s requirement for individual certification?

Summary of afternoon session – principles, do’s and dont’s for web 2.0 assessment

Overall – the session was broken up into several sections (discussed in small groups) which then were combined at a plenary. The following is a brief summary of each sub-section. I would note that, at times, the groups obviously struggled to limit their discussions to the specific briefs given. I think this behaviuour demonstrates the complexity of assessment and learning as a systemic functional construct; it feels more, to me, like an experience whose design is quite personal / individual, and while it is enacted in stages, it is understood as a whole.

Designing assessment
4 principles for designing assessment:

• Reflect on what Web 2.0 means to you as an educator
• Triangulation and Iteration in design: outcomes AND tasks AND applications
• Make assessment tasks pertinent to students (pertinent includes realism, authenticity, relevance, purpose)
• From Feedback to “feed” – feedback is inherent to the assessment process, from students to students, from teachers to students, from students to teachers, throughout the task – continuous error correction

Conducting assessment
Relevance; choice of technology important; is the task something do-able outside of Web 2.0 – if so, why the complexity?; how to assess and grade relative performance? Engaging students in a conversation about why doing this. Weighting of the assessment grade = time and effort required of student. Web environment is more persistent, make for living tasks (relates to students’ sense of purpose); importance of ‘program’ (course / major / degree) approach which generates learning over several units and years. Don’t mandate Web 2.0 unless it actually makes a difference. Don’t confuse the task with the environment. Respecting students as individuals. Important to persevere with one’s innovation and change.

Marking assessment
Consider the relationship between the technology’s form and the assessment criteria; assess across a range of tasks [criteria? components of a task]; importance of audience (in various ways); establish standards for marking; for large cohorts – agreement of standards across all graders and students. prepare yourself and students. Links Web 2.0 to ability to detect plagiarism [hmm?]. Moderating easier with online systems. Peer review as a positive. Dangers in publicness of assessed work, especially in the future.

Reporting/Feedback
Importance of application developers to address the needs of learning online. Ethical standards. Individual and group feedback processes differ. Complications of meeting university requirements vs students requirements.

Quality assurance
[ran out of batteries for this one - that is apposite, eh?]

Reflections
Well, interesting. Very clearly, the phrase “web 2.0″ generates very different perspectives and emphases, to the point where it appears ‘collaboration’ and ‘co-construction’ of knowledge have come to dominate – largely from people’s experiences with blogging, collaborative environments, and wikis. Not clear with Web 2.0 actually the right term, yet. There remains, also, a sense that web 2.0 is a synonym for ‘another go at online learning’ either because it has failed to be adopted in areas prior to this time or because people are unaware of the significant impact of the Internet on learning throughout the 1990s. Difficult, sometimes, to generate broader perspectives because putative benefits, uses, and disadvantages etc are all – actually – specific to a system, or a particular use of system. Fundamentally, we see some new orthodoxies emerging around the term Web 2.0 and its application to learning – orthodoxies that owe more to the way Web 2.0 is positioned oppositionally to prior elearning and to the ‘failures’ in current practice without the Internet that it might solve.

E-learning and role-plays online (Fang Law et al)
The presentation begins with the now-discredited, or at least heavily contested, concept of the “net generation”, including quoting Kennedy’s report (2009) which is part of the research showing that the net generation is not a particular useful concept, nor empirically sustained. It then provides the goal for the learning: employability (including quoting Gillard on the need for skills that work for work). The particular emphasis here is negotiation skills

The research described in this paper is based on discussions with three staff in business fields, looking at advantages and disadvantages of online assessment options for role-plays, with role-plays teaching the negotiation skills in an authentic way. Lecturers involved in the research had already done role-plays. They found it hard to move the role-play to a fully online environment and, instead, preferred to do role-plays in the traditional manner – co-present – and then using additional aspects online to finish off the roleplays. One critical aspect of good role-plays is debriefing; the presenter indicates that online modes enable much faster debriefing than traditional paper modes [quite why this is the case I don’t know – perhaps simply the ‘turnaround’ of paper? If so, it’s a relatively narrow application of the potentials of electronic writing]. Paper lists various straightforward ways in which ‘technology’ supports the roleplay process, principally around feedback and discussion and reflection.

Creating change in traditional assessment strategies… (Toomey et al.)
Emphasis on assessing real-world skills; using real situations not just artificial mock-ups. Thus, the presenter is saying real work needs to be performed, and then assessed, not that we attempt scenarios or similar. The research reported is on high school students in VET programs. The understandings of what is assessment and how people learning, as well as the whole economic structures involved, make the results of only marginal interest outside of the specific context, aside from the basic idea that one can wear camera glasses, record what one is doing, and then be assessed on what is seen (and heard) on the resulting video. Students assess themselves on the video, use it to improve.

Encouraging student self-assessment…(ReView) (Lawson et al.)
Students’ “active engagement with assessment standards” (Tenet 5 from Rust) : this point is a key foundation. Project reported here is ALTC project on knowledge of graduate attributes among staff and student and how are they built in to assessment. The technology discusses here is an online system, ReView, to make marking and assessment easier for staff; yet, it can also be used for self-assessment; and further, comparing the two perspectives. (Nice system – see commentary re its potential for massification of higher education). Research showed that, when students knew what GAs were, this helped them in their learning. Research also showed a global mismatch between student and tutor perceptions of students’ skills – students tended to overrate at first. When they did follow-up assignments, they did indeed align their expectations of stands to what was shared among the teaching staff.

Critical Commentary
Another paper heard today in this panel that relies on the simple dichotomies of the net generation, including the claim that students in this generation prefer active learning to passive learning. Rather like the claim that Web 2.0 technologies will (like Web 1.0!) make learning and students and teachers more likely (necessarily going) to work in a constructivist way. In fact, there is some evidence that students now are just as, or more, passive in their learning; at the very least, one cannot link a generational change around technology to the presumption of activeness, since it ignores the critical importance of learners motivations and skills for learning. The same theme developed in another paper, adding the concept of ‘learners on the go’- what does this mean?

However, it does occur to me that we might look at the specific modalities of communication that have become culturally associated with online communication. For example, while students probably do not assume that ‘assignments’ can be done via social networking tools perhaps they associate ‘feedback’ with a kind of rapid, interactive, short communication of the sort found in status updates, SMS and so on. Furthermore, students’ assumptions about ‘time’ are more likely to be influenced by the rapid, just-in-time nature of contemporary mediated communications, such that ‘timely’ for a student might be entirely inappropriate for the business of assessment grading.

Law’s paper also prompted me to think that some of our attempts to build in ‘online technologies’ are, largely, based on an intuitive sense that writing on a screen somehow makes reflection and interaction more likely to occur. This sense has, for me, two origins. First, of course, the considerable literature asserting this state of affairs without much detailed empirical research (though some exists); second, that society is using these technologies and there must, therefore, be a way or indeed a requirement for them to be used. If, however, we stopped thinking of technologies as ‘tools’ and begin thinking of them as channels, we may find a better basis for understanding and therefore tuning what is going on to the outcomes we seek. Ultimately, what is reported in many presentations as ‘the use of technology’ is probably better understood as the use of additional, different or more effective communications channels. Furthermore, we might well seek to understand reflection as communication with oneself, of relocating one’s thoughts outside of the self to be visible for reconsumption. If this is done electronically, then perhaps that is because many students do not write on paper anymore for this kind of life-work.

There appear to be two quite distinct trends in the way technology is operating to change our approaches to teaching and learning. One trend is the use of networked computing to enable activities and operations that used to be done primarily by people, in a shared culture, in ways that involve considerable time and money and which become increasingly attenuated and prone to failure if they are scaled. For example: in years past several tutors would work with a lecturer in a large unit, perhaps 400 students, and the processes of moderation and management would be done in meetings and so on. When scaled to units of 2000, these cultures and practices begin to fail, especially in conditions of economic constraint. Some of the technologies now being developed enable the same outcomes – moderation, commonality, management of assignments and so on – but on a massive scale and with greater distribution. The other trend is to use computing and related technologies to create hyper-individuality, to attempt to emphasise and promote the individual rather than the class. Potentially, we see both modern and postmodern trends at work simultaneously: modernity demands mass; postmodernity demands individualisation.

The panel, two papers, both focus on what staff are thinking about assessment, especially in response to institutional change. How do they make decisions? What do they think about assessment in a lived way? Importance of disciplines emerges strongly here.

Assessment for learning, learning through assessment: perspectives from creative industries (Hong and Vaughn)

We assess all the time as we make our journey through life; perhaps we need assessment for better living. A key principle – quality – what and how to students know it? They need to be provided with evidence and examples of quality work to know what to aim for. This helps to share and negotiate goals, and have more transparent outcomes.

Cites Boud (2007) – system is inert, conservative and slow to change; fears of the effort involved in major assessment change and also what it would reveal about the system.

Emphasises the need for assessment FOR learning, using criterion-referenced assessment, to avoid assessment OF learning; focus on patterns of assessment, number, type and weight will be mandated.

The research project described in the paper is about the ‘lived reality’ of Creative Industries teachers; are they changing their practices – is it a myth that they are conservative? Research involved interviews with staff across all 11 disciplines in CI plus core units. Array of sizes and types of programs – from 1500+ student units in core; to 10 students 3rd year performance. Questions probed impact of assessment regime on their working lives, understandings, current practices, innovations, how do students engage (as perceived by staff). Data collected, being analysed currently. While emphasising assessment, the research uses literature on teaching and learning practices as well as assessment directly to code the data from interviews. [As always, I would question whether the language used can be coded reliably in this way; no comment on what coder reliability testing was done; perhaps the variety of disciplines makes the language of education irreducible to shared norms?]. Much of this research involves assessing whether teachers self-describe as transmitting K or facilitating learning; or who are interested in teaching content or enabling students to develop conceptions. [Ultimately, too, the coding of expressions may also turn them into something they are not!]

Findings:

The ‘chaotic patchwork’: assessment decision making in the disciplines (Readman and Allen)

Research reported here was 19 interviews with selected staff who would be able to talk meaningfully about assessment practice decisionmaking; data support other work done by the researchers to map what is in curriculum documents.

What were the factors – personal, institutional, disciplinary? How did they influence assessment? What were the perceptions OF these factors (Symbolic Interactionism, focusing on interplay of structure and agency). Used the typology of know, believe, and do. Was there consistency? Did people know do something but, but not do it? Did they believe in what they did?

Notes gender and race perspectives influence academics’ implementation of assessment; the creation of ‘typologies’ of students. Excellent finding – students as criteria blind / seeking / savvy – they either game the system or, worse, have no capacity to game the system. [This finding does tend to undo the educationists’ lust for criteria to solve all problems: it simply creates a new set of problems, especially when we consider Rust’s criticism of the pursuit of explicitness]

What influences: own experiences as a student; inheriting courses by others which challenge; mentors; collaboration; experience and industry; students’ reaction to assessment; evaluations; norm-referencing / bell-curve influences; policy not rated highly – because research dates from a time when policy was light touch. [Based in SI, this reporting lumps together a variety of things, without attempting to categorise].

Interviews showed staff theorising their own practice (Bruner (1999)); people were ‘developing’ through reading and inquiry, not just going to workshops, contexts of practices – hybridity, multiple interpretations of policy; Neumann 2001 – academic disciplines are very important; rule-bending to feel ok about policy and achieve things.

Critical Commentary
Throughout the conference there has been considerable discussion of and alarm at the lack of collaborative enterprise amongst students – e.g. Hong focuses us on the stressed student ‘alone’ doing her assignment. Yet there is considerable evidence that students cooperate a lot on assignments, either with individuals or collectives, in ways that are all about the informal learning context, the support offered by the pre-existing networks and communities of learning which are not visible to teachers (and probably work because they are invisible). Perhaps one of the challenges here is to start realising students are not the poor creatures, beset by dramas and not able to cope unless academics to their job ‘right’? Students actually respond to the challenges of it not being quite right, or somewhat difficult. Academics need to work with the ‘invisible partnerships’ – teacher and student groups, which are not represented in a manner accessible to academic; but cannot either rely on, nor attempt to actively mobilise those partnerships.

Another key question that arises for me, as I listen to some discussion of Chris Rust’s earlier work (2002) and now. Rust appears to have moved on from a strong enthusiasm for close alignment of assessment with learning outcomes, to a more considered judgment that, at times, learning outcomes impede effective and creative assessment approaches (since learning outcomes are artificially extracted from the complexity of what is the goal). Outcomes really do pose a major question, as well, when one considers authenticity – perhaps there is a ‘translation’ needed from the specifics of an assessment back to the learning outcomes? That is: assignment x which attempts y and is assessed against z: we need to show how y and z ‘re-express’ the more formalistic and inflexible learning outcomes.

Readman’s paper brings up a very neat point regarding academic perspectives that students are “assessment driven”, as a negative. What they mean is: students are driven by the pursuit of marks (not necessarily high marks, but ‘personally satisfying marks’; such marks (in the minds of students) can be ‘too low’ for academics who want people to aspire to quality or that can be ‘too high’ for academics who want people to judge their own competence accurately. Of course this kind of pursuit of quality is a validation of the life choices of the academics themselves! Should we care if students are driven by marks? Should we re-educate them? Challenge them? Get them to realise it is not worthwhile? Will disputes with students over ‘you need to learn that learning isn’t what you thing’ overcome the capacity of academics and students to form coherent partnerships with differing perspectives?