Is this fraud? Are CPW trying dirty tricks to move me off UpFront tariff to O2 50?

I renewed my UpFront 50 (don’t ask – you can’t get it any more – which is probably why I’m having this problem) with Car Phone Warehouse around October 2008. They subsequently start texting me, saying they would change my tariff to O2 50 and charge me £18.60 per month (which is about what I pay for the whole year – no wonder they want to get me off it).

So, I rang, complained, they said they’d sorted it, and then next month … you guessed it … etc, and continued into November and December. Ended with a chat with two people from CPW, one male, and a separate conversation with one female, swearing blind that I’d not have the same problem, and it’d finally been sorted.

So I ignored more messages from CPW until tonight I noticed that they’ve changed my tarrif to O2 50, for Jan, Feb & March.

I’ve emailed them this … and will post the reply, if / when they do.

Keep your RSS’s peeled …

Pedagogy of e-learning – a tutor’s perspective.

The advantages and disadvantages of on-line learning are commonly understood – examples include “any time, anywhere” learning and a lack of secondary channels of feedback (e.g. non verbal communication) respectively.  Thus it follows that we need to modify our pedagogy of teaching and learning to better fit the new tools and techniques that ICT affords us.

Edge Hill’s own SOLSTICE project runs many sessions focussing on different aspects of on-line pedagogy; two of the most important areas perhaps being “content” and asynchronous discussion:

Content: We cannot simply upload the PowerPoint we used in class – it lacks your verbal contributions, and any enrichment from the rest of the group.  We must create content which creates a similar learning experience as if the session were delivered traditionally.  One downside of this approach is that it can result in large amounts of text over many pages.  However, we can break up monolithic text with attractive multimedia content such as images, video and audio.  Also you can embed student contributions from previous courses (perhaps even including anticipated student contributions).

Discussion: On-line asynchronous discussions are a great tool for enabling students to discuss and reflect on topics being covered by the course.  However, we need to be cautious in how we set these up and must formulate our initial “invitation” carefully to encourage rich contributions which maximise the learning process for all those involved.  Some of the best discussions have been instigated with a contentious proposal designed to encourage those less likely to contribute due to concerns such as a lack of confidence with the technology or the permanence of their contributions.

 

I'm trying to introduce the pedagogy of e-learning ...

... and found "E-learning and constructivism" from Canterbury - wonderful stuff - cheers Canterbury.

Playlist.com

The trail was hot ... I'd just uncovered a comment by one of my tutors which led to a blog which led to playlist.com which led to an hour messing with the content, play lists and wondering who was making money or disrespecting intellectual copyright, or perhaps the oppossite of all those things.

Here's the list that I made:

... and in the best tradition of the web, this will probably be my current version, not the one I created when i wrote this.

regards to all ... D

Turn It In - Plagarism detection software

Last week I went to a staff developemnt session on Turn It In. In our uni, it's billed as "Plagarism Detection Software" and was originally intended to receive all first year work in 08-09 - but this last bit seems to have slipped.

Of interest is the notion that a piece of work which shows no similarity to any existing work should be seen as "Bad", not "Good", and even more so for undergraduate work. This is because we should be encouraging wide reading and building on existing work, so therefore expect to see quotations and phrases from leaders in the relevant fields.

University of Warwick - e-learning strategy - 2002

A while ago, I was asked to select an e-learning policy and critique it. Ever since I’ve done this, I’ve pontificated about the e-learning strategy of the University of Warwick, and earlier today thought what a good idea to post my discussion posting about the policy on my blog so that those who are interested can take a further look.

The original document has been removed from the universities web site, but thanks to an internet archive (The WayBack Machine?) it can be viewed here:

Warwick University elearning Strategy Document, May 2002

Subject: University of Warwick - e-learning policy. Message no. 783 Author: David Callaghan (10133721) Date: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:43am

The policy I have selected is by the University of Warwick Information Technology Policy Committee, e-Learning Steering Group (2002).

* Summary

The strategy bowled me over in many aspects, in particular:
- University centric – looking at e-learning in the context of teaching and research at the whole university;
- Suggesting lobbying of funders to help with funding and steering their policies;
- ‘Soft’ targets, not the standard tick boxes I have been led to expect;
- Extensive realistic expectation embedded throughout the policy, especially with reference to encouraging staff to adopt the technology.

1) How was the strategy formed? Who was involved?

The strategy was formed by the e-learning steering group of ITPC at the University of Warwick. It appears to be a result of meetings of the e-learning steering group supported by wide consultation with many university departments; there is no mention of policy or guidance from any external agency.

2) What does the strategy set out to do? What are its aims?

The document articulates a framework for extending e-learning in ways consistent with the University's overall strategy and the e-strategy produced in 2001, and outlines the provision that the University would need to make to facilitate its implementation.

It is extremely comprehensive, covering an extensive field of e-learning issues, addressing positive aspects and problems, and suggesting ways of overcoming them. For example, from section 5.3 that is addressing how to encourage staff to develop e- learning in their departments: The rewards for staff and departments involved in this work should be tangible to encourage it, and might be collective (in the form of enhanced teaching research rankings, recognition by peers, etc.)

3) How practical is the strategy? Is it mainly a set of guidelines; or are there specific recommendations?

The strategy addresses a multitude of specific issues with recommendations or suggestions for most of the practical problems envisaged in enhancing the e-learning experience at Warwick. All of the suggestions seem eminently practical and reasonable.

4) Are there resources available to back up and develop the strategy?

As recommendations are stated, existing funding streams or resources are identified that to some extent financially support each recommendation. One of the exceptions is the financial provision for support staff is referred to in 5.1.2: Appropriate plans and bids would need to be developed.

5) Can you make a judgement as to how helpful the strategy is for:

(a) managers and (b) staff

It puts clearly into context what the universities desire for e-learning is and what activities the university would support to meet those aims. Managers and staff would be able to create their own priorities and policies in their areas to support the overall strategy. It clearly indicates technical issues, funding streams, and new areas to explore, such as the sale of lectures via streaming technologies.

(c) clients/patients/pupils/students?

Students may not find the strategy especially useful since they have a relatively short career at the university and the policy is addressing a 5 year + timescale. However, medics and other students envisaging a longer stint may look at this to support lobbying for this at later stages.

6) What is your overall feeling about ‘strategies’?

I am suspicions of ‘strategies’ as they can be used as a fig leaf to hide poor practice and reluctance to change (Collinson, Knights, and Collinson 1990). They have been used by many organizations to pontificate about what they do or are going to do, and then get on with the status quo, or even use the policy to enable them to do differently. Notably, in the university sector this can be done with great style and flair.

However, I have to say I am very impressed with the Warwick strategy, and having read this one would suggest that this be a first port of call for anyone thinking of developing their own. I have read many policies from the DfES which are embedded with rhetoric and hard targets seemingly plucked out of the air. The Warwick document is, in my opinion, vastly superior because:
* it contains little rhetoric;
* its recommendations are founded in a pedagogical view of learning combined with a realistic expectation of staff;
* targets are soft – such as
'Widespread' (used by >50% of staff);
'Medium' (used by 25- 50% of staff);
'Low' (used by approx. 10% of staff);

Further reading: The Edge Hill e-learning strategy. I know there is at least a draft in existence which is being championed by M Schofield, but that’s where the trail ends. Can someone post this please?

David

Warwick University, Information Technology Policy Committee, e-Learning Steering Group (2002) elearning Strategy Document Version 2.1 [20.5.02] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/forum/archive/elearning/stategydocument/ Accessed 22 October 2006

Table one

This is a test