A Brave New “Deloitte” World… Educators Wake UP!

Could we leave the door unlocked? , by Erik Pevernagie, oil on canvas, 100 x130 cm

Could we leave the door unlocked? , by Erik Pevernagie, oil on canvas, 100 x130 cm

This week we have a spirited call to critique the corporate discourse on tertiary education that seems to be influencing executive management in universities. Dallas Wingrove & Angela Clarke take on Deloitte’s recent white paper.

In reading the recent Deloitte white paper The paradigm shift: redefining education we became increasingly concerned by the vision of higher education the authors propose. Deloitte’s analysis of the current and new education paradigm is alarming because of the potential influence this paper may have on the development of future government policy.

The paper, produced by business leaders and technology experts, details a nine-month study conducted by Deloitte’s Centre for the Edge. It indicates that existing models of education are becoming increasingly irrelevant.  The paper suggests a significant disconnect between the purpose of education and the demands on “the modern worker”. In the context of rapid technological change, Deloitte identifies two factors that are operating as catalysts for a paradigm shift in education: work-integrated learning, and a shift from traditional methods of credentialing employees.

In this post we discuss and respond to what we consider are the most alarming assumptions, conclusions and predictions presented by Deloitte through their blindsiding analysis of this new paradigm.  We call on educators to wake up and push back, lest we find ourselves immersed in a brave new “Deloitte” world.

Our response

  • Deloitte is blindsiding. Its analysis ignores major curriculum, pedagogical and policy shifts that have occurred in the higher education sector over the past twenty years. For example, they argue that the existing education paradigm is founded upon building “stocks of knowledge, transferring those stocks to individuals and then certifying that this knowledge has been successfully transferred”. Twenty-first century students are no longer considered entities for receiving transmission; rather they are encouraged to develop graduate attributes such as critical thinking, along with“the values that inform the work of universities, their contribution to culture, citizenship and intellectual growth” (Hounsell, 2010). In more recent years, and despite the massification of the higher education sector, Australian universities have embraced and enacted a more holistic, all-encompassing view of these attributes and values, foregrounding lifelong learning as a core graduate outcome.
  • Deloitte’s analysis ignores the complexities of the education debate. Their model triangulates industry, education and students and takes no account of its role in educating for essential public service sectors such as human services, health, and not-for-profits, or indeed the arts.
  • Deloitte appropriates and then subverts educational concepts. For example, the authors claim a holistic view of a university education and herald lifelong learning as integral to the way forward. Yet Deloitte’s framework subverts a holistic education by privileging productivity and enterprise skills over higher order learning. The underlying assumption is that the usefulness of a university education is to serve the needs of a product-producing economy. As noted above, the concept of lifelong learning is not new for educators. Australian universities have for decades been moving toward models of lifelong learning that foster and evidence the integration and application of knowledge and skills.
  • Deloitte assumes educational institutions are producing “workers” of the future. Using a superficial interpretation of Bloom’s taxonomy, the paper defines a creative worker as someone who has “the ability to build on lower order skills to create a new product or idea”.  In doing so, Deloitte fails to recognise the multiple intelligences required for the development of fully formed citizens.
  • Deloitte subvert research. By repositioning research activity as an “optimisation” practice undertaken to deliver economic outputs the authors ignore the critical role that research plays in enhancing social and cultural wellbeing in society for the betterment of all.  
  • Deloitte is inconsistent in its argument.  Much of the paper argues for a shift from “knowledge stocks” to “knowledge flows”.  This is where knowledge and skills acquisition is a continuous process of filling the gaps because of rapidly changing contexts and technology. However in the final paragraph Deloitte undermines this argument by suggesting that students might need “a bedrock of essential facts”. What facts would they be then, given that knowledge, according to Deloitte, should consist of “flows”?


We acknowledge that one of the fundamental roles of a university is to equip its graduates to contribute effectively to the knowledge economy. In this, employability represents a core graduate outcome. However, a university education should not be exclusively focused on economic returns and the creation of “productive workers”.

The Deloitte paper does raise some interesting points, particularly by reinforcing the importance of integrating learning and work. The role of education sectors in being able to adapt to newly emerging ways of credentialing employability is also worthy of deeper consideration.

Deloitte also proposes a model for “creative knowledge work” consisting of three pillars. The proposed second pillar relates to the importance of equipping “the worker” with the capacity to “create a new solution to a new problem”. A worthy attribute, and yet in making this point Deloitte states, “As Donald Rumsfeld might say, they need to minimise the unknown unknowns”. This is a surprising reference to say the least. “Unknown unknowns” was a phrase used by Rumsfeld when answering questions from the media in the context of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002.

We believe that Deloitte’s reductionist analysis fails to recognise what lies at the heart of a high quality democratic university education. True, there may be a paradigm shift underway but we should not lose sight of the fact that a twenty-first century educational experience should still:

  • foster higher order  transformative learning, AND
  • nurture socially responsible and ethical citizens of the world committed to contribute to, and equipped to critically engage with, not only business and government, but also with community and culture.

As educators we must remain vigilant and active in the debates around education. Otherwise we may turn around one day to find our educational institutions have been appropriated for the purposes of economic imperatives alone.


Hounsell, D. (2010). ‘Graduates for the 21st Century: Integrating the Enhancement themes’. End of year report.

Whose knowledge is it anyway?

This week we hear from Angela Finn, Deputy Head Learning & Teaching in the School of Fashion and Textiles at RMIT University, discussing emergent issues with intellectual property for the creative arts online.

In recent years, the university has become increasingly interested in defining the ownership of intellectual property. This has become a topic of some confusion and discontent amongst teaching staff and students who are interested in protecting their own rights, for now and the future, for works that have been created within the university environment. In the context of design, sharing images of work can equate to publishing intellectual property. Where more traditional methods of sharing ideas are protected through anti-plagiarism policy and copyright law, the gratuitous reproduction of design images has become commonplace. Compiling and publishing of images is an accepted method of building contemporary knowledge within the visual disciplines and is encouraged through design methods such as recording inspirations in a visual diary – or more commonly now – a Pinterest board.


A screenshot of images that are available through Pinterest from a search for home design. https://www.pinterest.com/search

Consider the example of a recent Facebook post where innovative Australian design company ArchiBlox (http://www.archiblox.com.au/designs/) is gaining publicity by sharing and re-sharing their design drawings within the social media space.  The trade-off to generating interest within new markets is to share enough information for the audience to gain knowledge of a uniquely designed product such as the ArchiBlox modular system.

A link to Science Alert at University of Technology Sydney where the original Facebook posting was directed http://www.sciencealert.com/world-first-this-prefab-home-generates-more-energy-than-it-uses

A link to Science Alert at University of Technology Sydney where the original Facebook posting was directed http://www.sciencealert.com/world-first-this-prefab-home-generates-more-energy-than-it-uses

Although ArchiBlox go to the effort of posting a standard disclaimer on their website,

All ArchiBlox designs are subject to copyright law and are subject to the copyright act 1965. All rights retained by ArchiBlox Pty Ltd

They are embracing a different approach to online marketing. Business and industry are beginning to approach marketing of design by sharing design details as a way of setting their products apart from others in the marketplace. There is emerging freedom around making information freely available, in contrast to the earlier style where detailed information about a particular product or service was only accessible after completing a registration process.

The alternative is where companies such as ArchiBlox are overprotective of their intellectual property, to a point where no one would know about the sustainable, forward thinking, carbon positive, cutting-edge design that they are capable of producing. There is a long history within Fashion & Textiles design where being first is more important than being alone in terms of having a creative and innovative idea. There is little evidence of successful prosecution of fashion companies that infringe intellectual property rights through copying, given the rumoured commonality of the practice within industry circles. The costs of pursuing a case are prohibitive and in fashion terms, the evidence to prove an exact copy as well as hardship through a loss of profits is often difficult to procure.

The current debate about whether or not to freely share knowledge is becoming even more relevant as teachers begin to ‘capture’ their skills and knowledge in various formats to build teaching resources. This has been a result of a continuing and growing trend for using digital platforms to accommodate contemporary students, who have complex and varied work arrangements, and to support wider diversity within teaching practice. At RMIT University many large format lectures are recorded, lecturers produce numerous quizzes, blogs, Google+ communities, Facebook groups – the list continues to grow on what seems a weekly basis.  Some staff members have become concerned with ownership of the resulting image, text, film or other online content that is produced. The University will find it difficult to formulate policy around the dynamic nature of the digital environment. There is no clear delineation between lecturers’ paid work and the resources they develop as a side effect of their dedicated teaching practice, which also vary depending on their skill at using these ubiquitous forms of digital communication. The resulting questions may not have clear answers. Can content generated within an individual teacher’s practice be used to support other teachers within the university? What happens when a staff member moves on from RMIT University? Does the university ‘own’ these materials if they are produced by sessional or part-time staff?

I am reminded of the story of the digital revolution that retells the legend of the first software designers that published code for other designers to use and improve — this is long before our contemporary understanding of open source systems. One of my lecturers at university would tell his students the story that the rule of thumb was that if you liked a particular program you could send an envelope containing $5 to the author as a token of your appreciation. The resulting software was the back upon which today’s giants such as Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Google were built. What would have happened if each individual designer had developed their own software in isolation? Would we have the type of ubiquitous technology we have now? At a quick count I have at least seven personal computing devices (my personal and work laptops, iPads, iPhones as well as Apple TV) within a three metre radius of my sofa!

These questions would be resolved much more easily if we agree with the idea that knowledge cannot be owned but rather, as teachers, we are guardians of the knowledge we have accumulated and our main role is to offer this knowledge to our students. After all, where would any of us be without the people who shared their knowledge with us in the first place?

Good homework for an academic developer

Today Meredith Seaman gives us her reflections on a course development project, specifically the learning design map activity used in Global Learning by Design Express projects.

I recently worked with colleagues as the academic developer on a project to support online development of a new unit. The project was underpinned by a model which I have found supports a refreshing and energised space for course design and reflection worth sharing.

The project

The project brief, broadly, was to design a unit – Disaster Resilient Landscapes. The design needed to take into account that future students would be from a range of disciplines and potentially based in different countries while studying the fully online course. The project was part of an RMIT initiative called Global Learning by Design Express (GLbDx) running in the Design and Social Context College. The projects are collaborations designed to enhance aspects of online learning at the unit level over approximately 6 weeks. The projects involve collaboration between academics, education developers from our digital learning team, and academic developers (which in this case was me). The projects also support collaborations with the Study and Learning Centre and the Library here at RMIT.

As is common to all GLbDx projects, the lead academic and colleagues were supported to develop a detailed design of the new course at an early stage. This takes the form of a week-by-week map and looks something like this:

More on the GLbD Express and Course Maps model.

I was introduced to this particular project at the point where a big complex chart, mapping out every aspect of a 12-week course, had been mostly completed. The resulting map was – quite usefully I think – making apparent some challenges.

The ‘map’ of the 12-week program of study being developed covered:

  • who the likely students were
  • at what stage different learning outcomes would be developed and assessed throughout the course
  • how these learning outcomes aligned with various week by week teacher and student activities
  • and – unsurprising but pivotal – the alignment of assessment tasks and all other aspects of the course week by week.

The map in front of us greatly assisted discussion around the specific needs of the course and cohort.  The range of capabilities we could offer as a project team with diverse experiences and knowledge informed our exploration of many aspects of the course.

It brought our attention to issues such as:

  • Could students get through all the course content in the proposed time frame?
  • Could all the material be covered?
  • Were the assessments manageable for students in the allocated timeframes?
  • What was the best way to convey complex diverse perspectives and resources in a field of contested definitions? e.g. “what is resilience?”

My homework

One key aspect to be considered for this unit was its interdisciplinary aspects. The course would be online for postgraduate students coming from a range of diverse disciplines working on complex real-world problems. As in the real world, the work would be in interdisciplinary teams. The team developing the course was also interdisciplinary.

I was asked what I knew, and what I could find, out about getting interdisciplinary teams to work effectively. An interesting conversation ensued about our knowledge and experiences of good and bad team-work and some principles for good practice. I happily agreed to do more homework on the interdisciplinary ‘problem’ and to provide additional thoughts and resources on what principles and activities could set these teams up effectively and consider ways to scaffold what was likely to be quite intense interdisciplinary group projects.

There are resources very close to home:

  • The Belonging Project, also based here at RMIT, has shared a toolkit for interdisciplinary education and a summary of their approaches. They respond to the industry need for ‘broader knowledge and skills, particularly in those areas where traditional disciplinary boundaries have changed and continue to do so’.
  • The Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) have also developed a guide to designing courses for interdisciplinary teaching which could be relevant.
  • I’ve also found some frameworks and practical suggestions in the literature, including that students could work in their discipline groups first to create ‘bluffer’s guides’ for students new to certain disciplines, to strengthen their knowledge before working with others (Woods, 2007).

Where next?

We are finding the mapping process a very useful brainstorming and planning technique. More to go on this project, and I look forward to unpacking these resources and others with the teaching team and further supporting the project to see the results. The project is prompting great questions and providing opportunities for us to work through them in more depth with committed and engaged academics.

The GLbDX projects and the approach to course design have in my experience had a really promising ability to prompt rich discussion and brainstorming… with the side benefit of really enjoyable homework being set for academic developers.


Woods, C. 2007. ‘Researching and developing interdisciplinary teaching: towards a conceptual framework for classroom communication Higher Education. Volume 54, Issue 6, pp 853-866.

Crossing Borders: Empowering Teachers to Support Discipline-related Extracurricular Activity (ECA)

This week Cathy Leahy has interviewed Noel Maloney, program coordinator of Professional Screenwriting in the School of Media and Communication, about his work in researching extracurricular student activity.

Crossing a boarder at the Museum of Modern Art Istanbul. Photo by Cathy Leahy

Crossing a boarder at the Museum of Modern Art, Istanbul. Photo by Cathy Leahy

Recently I caught up with Noel Maloney, program coordinator of Professional Screenwriting in the School of Media and Communication, RMIT University. The focus of our discussion was his role as the Design and Social Context (DSC) Innovation Teaching Fellow 2015, in which he is undertaking a project called “Crossing Borders: Empowering Teachers to Support Discipline–Related Extracurricular Activity”. This project will resource teachers and academics to better manage extracurricular, interdisciplinary projects.

What lead you to your interest in this project?

In the School of Media and Communication, and more specifically within the area of professional screenwriting, there has been a long history of projects or events set up with students, or that students initiate, that are not part of formal learning.

There are several important questions these types of projects raise. What do students learn in this sort of activity that they don’t learn in formal learning environments and how do they imagine it benefiting their employment in the future? How can we best support teaching and academic staff to deliver these projects to provide appropriate environments for students, while preserving their characteristic autonomy?

What can be gained through these experiences?

Staff and students I have interviewed for this project value their participation in discipline-related extracurricular projects in several ways. These projects are seen to enhance student experience and create a sense of participation and belonging. They develop employability skills through managing contingencies, developing agency and working collaboratively with people across various disciplines, in environments that often simulate industry conditions but are safe. Students experience a certain freedom in these activities. They also provide an opportunity to showcase work. While students are not formally assessed in these projects, they still find opportunities to  reflect and contextualise their experiences. In these projects students typically make something from beginning to end and this is highly valued. They experience working in a really intense way, and dealing with chaos. These were not negative problems. They talk about these challenges in a very positive way.

In addition these activities build up the profile of the programs, and for the teachers and academics concerned this can work very much in their favour. It can put people and programs on the map.

What are the challenges for staff to support these activities?

Time and money.

Often staff are not allocated time in their work plans to run these sorts of projects. Inevitably they sit above and beyond their formal duties.  This is one of the operational aspects that this project can look at and highlight. Also, these projects often require funding, and a high degree of pre-planning, if they are to be effectively resourced.  

What activities have recently been undertaken in DSC?

Two of the larger projects are:

  • The “9 Slices” project, bringing students together across a number of disciplines to produce a book in nine days as part of the Emerging Writers’ Festival.

  • A Fashion and Textiles event, where students work collaboratively in a global environment to deliver a “Fashion Challenge”. This project has run over a number of years, originally with RMIT University and Salford University in the UK, and more recently expanded to include Columbia College in Chicago.

Other activities include:

  • The RMIT Screen Network, a university wide initiative for media students
  • Young Ones, an online magazine developed by VE design students
  • A film anthology, One Minute to Go, produced by screenwriting and screen production students, with performers from 16th St Actors’ Studio.
  • A photobook project between writing and photography students
  • Various study tours

What are the outcomes you are hoping to achieve through this project by the end of the year?

There will be a symposium in late November, as well as resources to help teachers and academics better manage these activities.

The symposium will bring together both Vocational and Higher Education staff involved in these initiatives, providing a supportive environment to present and share their experiences to a wider audience. There is a growing enthusiasm for this type of opportunity: it’s something that has always been there, but when you start to talk about it, people light up with its potential.

Inspired and want to know more?

If you know of a discipline-related, extracurricular project that deserves mention, get in touch with Noel Maloney, noel.maloney@rmit.edu.au. Or come along to the symposium that will be held in late November.

Polarities: A question from Twitter

This week, Howard Errey raises an interesting question around choice and consequences, and what is lost when discussion and debate polarises.

 The Argument by Austin Wright. Photo by Wikimedia Commons user DavidKF1949

The Argument by Austin Wright. Photo by Wikimedia Commons user DavidKF1949

Last year, for the What on Earth are they Using Project, we investigated what methodologies and technologies are being used outside of RMIT’s Learning Management System (LMS). It was a marvelous experience where many stories were collected that helped transform how staff approach online practice, regardless of platform. In conversations since the project, about the state of online practice at our institution, I often refer to a question we received via Twitter that seemed to encapsulate the consequences for students.

Firstly, this story needs some context. The question came as the last question, in the last event, of the project in December 2014. Gregor Kennedy and Travis Cox had just explained the LMS setup at Melbourne University. If there are 6 students over in Engineering or wherever, that want a plugin for the LMS, Travis and his team can spec it out, tell IT what to do and what to expect, and they will just go and do it.

By contrast we have an interesting situation where we have a poorly implemented LMS, due to funding, structural and political issues not worth pursuing here. In the meantime some of the Google suite of apps have been turned on enabling a wide range of innovative practice, not to mention teaching time efficiency, as we discovered in our project. The gaps in the LMS are often filled by the easy functionality afforded through Google.

And so to the Twitter question. It came from Jenny Luca a school librarian. Her context is that her school hosts trainee teachers on placement. Her question to Gregor asked when Melbourne University was going to turn on Google. It came from a frustration that Melbourne University students on placement didn’t have a sufficient level of ‘digital literacy’, which has become so important in K-12 education sector, especially with so many schools using Google Apps in Education.

It was an innocent enough question, with an equally simple answer. Gregor’s response was ‘no’.

This then begs questions for me. Is our university accidentally doing our students a favour by supporting a few choices in teaching platform? Are our students, despite what might be a frustrating experience, going out there with better digital resilience? I would like to think so; and where does this then leave us in terms of planning elearning infrastructure and designing better experiences for students?

The positive side of all this is that we have options and a new culture of enablement emerging. The negative side is that we have 2 platforms that are both only partially enabled leading to frustrations. Often complicated work arounds are necessary, giving rise to situations that give plenty of ammunition to the risk averse marketing and copyright policy enforcers, that continue to drive innovation underground.


What I notice in our conversations about online practice is how polarities arise, usually between ‘face to face vs online’, or ‘Blackboard vs Google’. The challenge with this is how being invested in either can become your own “prison”, as Jim Groom describes it in relation to ‘closed vs open’. Again perhaps it is good that we have grey areas at RMIT. The challenge I see is that when 2 polarities dominate a conversation there emerges no room for a third element. What if we want a different technology to be supported by the university altogether? In the 2 years I have been at RMIT there has been very little room for such wider conversation.

Another example of a polarity in online educational design, is that between pedagogy and technology. “Pedagogy comes first” is the mantra, rightly so in an educational organisation. At the same time we need to provide the opportunities to play with new technologies, such as the DSC Innovation Incubator, in order to experience those lightbulb moments. Where it gets frustrating, in terms of introducing a third element, is in good quality social design which, as a psychologist, I consider a primary precursor to both pedagogy, technology and student engagement. It is all too easy to assume, as I often hear it, that “social means all that technology stuff like Facebook and Twitter”. The argument is then back in the pedagogy/technology spectrum so that when it comes to starting design, the “pedagogy first” horse has already bolted.

As a mid-design remedy I am thinking of overlaying the educational design course maps and personas, with a social user experience layer. I have been working with an Architecture program where we have an excellent but all too linear course map. On realising this, it occurred to me that using another layer with tracing paper, as per architects’ methods in design, over the top of the course map, could help design a social experience through the course, even before the course starts. In the process it will hopefully help to join some of the dots still missing in our course design efforts, and truly focus on a student centric experience. It will be interesting to see a design with both these layers, and watching for a crossover when the social, or even other factors depending on context, might lead to a better experience and pedagogy.

Towards sustainable assessment: some thoughts

Dr Peter Rushbrook, Deputy Head, Learning and Teaching at RMIT University’s School of Education shares some thoughts and references about sustainable assessment. 

image depicting a session in a workplace training centre at a major Singapore supermarket chain.

This is an image depicting a session in a workplace training centre at a major Singapore supermarket chain. The trainees are undergoing assessment of their checkout skills, including managing cash and customer service. This is a simulation but the skills learned are put into practice quickly in the demonstration store next door.

Thinking of assessment for, as and of learning (Earle, 2006), not just of learning, is no longer new. What is new are approaches to assessment that build on this basic premise to support Twenty-first century learning. Paying attention to assessment is critically important for adult learning as David Boud (2010) points out,

Assessment is a central feature of teaching and the curriculum. It powerfully frames how students learn and what students achieve.

Assessment is a process, not just an end result.

Assessment for longer term learning focuses on higher order thinking and skills, such as exercising judgment in context. It develops independent, confident practitioners ready to transition to the next phase, ready to work independently and with others to make informed judgments (Boud 2010). We need to focus not just learning how to learn, but on the subset of learning – how to assess (Boud 2000). We need to move away from multiple choice questions and away from assessors looking for answers from an answer sheet. Such practices do not reflect the increasing cognitive (Darling-Hammond, 2014) and complex psycho-social demands required of our workforce. They fail to contribute to the application of learning to contexts outside a classroom or test environment. Essentially, we need to move from narrow assessment to assessment for deeper sustained learning.

Assessment needs to do double duty: both for credentialing and learning purposes. This includes: formative assessment for learning and summative for certification; focusing on the task and developing lifelong learners; and attending to the learning process as well as the content. Assessment of this nature requires the collection of a range of forms of evidence over time to assess the understanding of a learner, as well as equipping the learner with skills to self-assess. This has profound implications for the design of learning. Boud (2010) suggests there are a number of principles of assessment which we can drawn on and adapted to our context and purpose:

  • assessment is used to engage learners in learning that is productive.
  • feedback is used to actively improve learners’ learning
  • learners and educators become responsible partners in learning and assessment
  • learners are inducted into the assessment practices and cultures of performance for work
  • assessment for learning is placed at the centre of curriculum design.
  • assessment provides inclusive and trustworthy representation of learner achievement, providing reliable evidence of performance
  • when assessment is a focus for those involved in curriculum assessment of student achievements is judged against consistent national and international standards that are subject to continuing dialogue, review and justification within professional communities

A new emphasis and direction towards workplace and other forms of blended learning and assessment (classroom, workplace and/or e-environments) in countries such as Singapore (where I am currently working on some assessment research in its Continuing Education and Training sector) signals a move away from a heavy reliance on classroom assessment, and a reimagining of the possibilities of teaching and learning practice. Outcomes through devolving assessment responsibility to learners and ‘outsourcing’ further aspects to employers and industry have the potential to increase learner employability and improve the learner experience – through carrying over into work the skills required to self-monitor developing skill sets and domain knowledge, as well as self-direct integration within new workplace contexts and communities of practice. RMIT is well on the way to exploring these possibilities within Work Integrated Learning (WIL) and similar programs, but may benefit from uniting current thinking within an overall philosophy of sustainable assessment (and learning).


Boud, D. (2010). Assessment 2010. Australian Learning and teaching Council, UTS.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed). (2014). Next generation assessment. Moving beyond the bubble test to support 21st century learning. Jossey-Bass.

Earle, L. (2013) Assessment as learning. Sage Publications

Earle, L. (2006). Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind. Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth.

Digital Resilience

This week Erika Beljaars-Harris takes us to a place of ‘digital resilience’ or perhaps ‘endurance’ in some instances… 

"damn, that's a resilient tree." Photo by Eric Molina

“damn, that’s a resilient tree.” Photo by Eric Molina

William M. Ferriter is a sixth grade classroom teacher out of Raleigh, North Carolina. He is also a Solution Tree author and professional development associate, noted edublogger, and senior fellow of the Centre for Teaching Quality.

William (Bill) blogs often about his wins and losses in using technology in the classroom. One noted blog post of Bill’s was “openly sick of being digitally resilient“.

The term ‘resilient’ means the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed. Synonyms for resilient include; flexible, pliable, pliant, supple, plastic, elastic, springy, rubber, durable, hard-wearing, stout, strong, sturdy and tough.

Another side of this resilience is having the patience to try again. Some may try a new technology once and when it doesn’t work, decide that it wasn’t as good as it was cracked up to be. Some may have unrealistically high expectations of technology; that it should be intuitive and can be mastered with a minimum of effort. Maybe the industry is to blame for pushing the user-friendly argument rather too often and forgetting to add that user-friendly doesn’t mean that the device or tool requires no skill. Learning takes time and involves a lot of trial and error. Mastery demands sweat and sometimes tears. Although many digital tools are fairly easy to learn at a basic level sometimes we just need to work hard to really produce impressive work.

Digital resilience also means having the confidence to use technology even if colleagues are sceptical and there is little support. Finding ways around obstacles, having the patience to test and fail till you get it right, and having the opportunity to play with the technology all support becoming digitally resilient.

The Elearning Innovation Incubator, initiated by Associate Professor Andrea Chester, Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor, Learning & Teaching at RMIT, provides academics with a space to innovate and play with new and cutting edge technologies for education. Members of the group are provided with the opportunity to play with and trial tools and technologies (that they envision will be available 10 years down the track). The group works as as support network where peers can share their thoughts on using new technologies in education, some trial the tool in the classroom, and then share their experiences with the group.

Becoming digitally resilient doesn’t always mean jumping in the deep end when using a tool. Sometimes its baby steps to move to the next level of confidence to explore and use educational technologies.