Ultranet Case Report
Introduction
The Ultranet was an online learning management system intended to improve student learning by connecting students, teachers and parents. This case report will describe how it unfolded, provide a critical analysis of literature relevant to the conception and management of the case, and conclude with recommendations for similar endeavours.
“Time will tell whether the Ultranet turns into something really worthwhile or just another government White Elephant.” (Tatnall & Davey 2012, p. 169). Less than two years earlier Tatnall, Dakich and Davey had seen great potential in the Ultranet as a vehicle for monitoring student progress; teacher collaboration and professional learning, and increased active involvement of parents and the greater community in a new, social learning platform for students (2011, p.357). So what happened?
Case Development
The Ultranet, an online learning management system was introduced to government schools in Victoria during 2010. First conceived in 2004 (DEECD, 2010a, p.2) it was trialled as the Student@Centre Ultranet in 12 schools in 2006 (Griffin & Woods, 2006). There were significant delays in rolling out the system, including a second tendering process with significant reduction in the scope (1260 functions reduced to 131) (Tatnall, Davey, Dakich & Wickramasinghe, 2013; Tomazin, 2010; Lamshed, 2012), and a last minute recommendation from the Victorian Privacy Commissioner (VPC) to remove students’ learning contacts and communication wall (Topsfield, 2010).
The Ultranet was intended to connect students, parents and teachers across all government schools in Victoria, allowing for continuity as students progressed through the system or moved schools for other reasons. Another key intention was to provide a “one stop shop” for teachers to access learning tools, resources and student data. (DEECD, 2010a; 2010b).
In preparation the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) recruited 70 Ultranet coaches (DEECD, 2010a, p.2) who, from the beginning of 2009, worked with schools to develop understanding of the application of technology in education. In May 2010 they began their fundamental role of training the trainers - designated school lead users - and supporting the implementation of the Ultranet in schools.
The Ultranet was released in two stages. Stage one included: learning portfolios for students; collaborative learning spaces for teachers and students; design spaces for teacher collaboration; community spaces for the whole school community (including parents) or groups within the school or across multiple schools; capacity to store and share learning resources, and access to reviewed websites and digital learning objects. Stage two included Learning Tasks (for teachers to plan, deliver and assess learning activities for students) and Learner Profile (for sharing information about individual students with parents and teachers). Stage two was released late in 2010 but did not become fully functional until the middle of the following year. User experience generally was not good but there were some success stories; Learning Tasks appeared to fulfil a need not otherwise catered for (Bailie, 2014; Seddon, 2013).
August 9, 2010 was a state-wide pupil-free day to officially launch the Ultranet. Principals and assistant principals attended a launch function in the city while coaches and lead users were left to run Ultranet training sessions in schools. The system did not cope and crashed before 9am and did not recover that day. The media and opposition were quick to lay blame and confidence in the system was seriously compromised. (Tatnall et al, 2013, p.41; Masanauskas, 2010; Fraudster, 2010).
The November 2010 election saw a change of government and subsequent loss of support (Tatnall et al 2013, p.38). The May 2011 budget withdrew funding for Ultranet coaches from 2012 (Tatnall et al, 2013, p.41). In early 2012, as part of enterprise bargaining action, the Australian Education Union (AEU) banned further implementation activities. In December 2012 a report tabled in parliament found the Ultranet was poorly planned and implemented (Victoria. Auditor-General, 2012) including being more than 80 percent over budget and lacking intended functionality.
In 2013 the government announced that the Ultranet would become a user-pays system from the beginning of 2014 (Topsfield, 2013). The site has now disappeared.
Critical analysis
The critical analysis will first examine latent or existing attitudes and assumptions around social learning and virtual learning spaces, followed by exterior pressures and design constraints and finally look at the balance of pragmatism and the status quo versus experimental space design.
“But we’d like the students to be able to chat with students at other schools.” Primary teacher quoted in the Student@Centre Ultranet pilot study report (Griffin & Woods, p.34).
The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEECDYA, 2008) set two goals: for schooling to promote equity and excellence; and that all Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, active and informed citizens. So what is a successful learner? Powerful learners are sociable, they collaborate and share with others (Claxton, 2008). The importance of social opportunities in the learning process are well documented (Sorensen & Murchu, 2004; Wise & Tynan 2012; Conole, 2012) including the value of interactive collaboration for knowledge building, leading to the assumptions that learning is a social experience, and that young people are collaborative by nature (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Moyle, 2010). Successful modern learners are engaged by Web 2.0 technology which allows them to share experiences through easy to use, interactive, customisable and collaborative tools (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Heinrich & Bozhko 2012). If learners are to be enabled by Web 2.0 tools their teachers must also participate in distributed networks and have critical communicative, collaborative and creative skills (Conole, 2012). It is now assumed that teachers are competent in using technology for most aspects of their work (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014).
The design of a learning space, whether physical or virtual should encourage healthy social participation in both formal and informal spaces or communities (MCEETYA, 2008; Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Olsson & Slumpi, 2013; Wise & Tynan 2012). Additionally, Heinrich and Bozhko (2012) recognise that social learning opportunities, particularly those enabled by Web 2.0 tools, are an important factor in lifelong learning and in promoting learning activities beyond the traditional school day (Johnson et al, 2014).
The web is a modern learning environment (Wise & Tynan, 2012) but a web page is not a learning space unless it provides for social interaction (Dillenbourg, 2000). Web technologies support learning when they allow for community formation, content generation and peer critiquing (Conole, 2012). A space becomes social when the user can see others’ interests. A virtual learning space uses its authentic audience to advantage (Dillenbourg, 2000). The virtual learning space should be safe and secure, allow social interaction and collaboration, and put the students in charge of their learning. (Heinrich & Bozhko, 2012).
The intervention of the VPC which led to the removal of some of the social aspects of the Ultranet for students was just one part of the process that could be seen as negatively impacting its potential for success: “The Victorian Government is committed to giving every child every opportunity to experience the full potential of online learning, collaboration and information sharing” Bronwyn Pike, Minister for Education (Tatnall et al, 2011, p.350).
Dillenbourg (2000) found developing a school intranet is a bigger challenge than building on the Internet. The Ultranet was effectively a system-wide intranet for DEECD schools and thus challenged by the limitations of being responsible to a publicly elected entity. As a government project the Ultranet was subject to significant exterior pressures and design constraints including privacy and safety (Conole, 2012), the motivation of the government, and teacher capacity.
Safety of student data has been identified as a difficult challenge in the latest Horizon Report (Johnson et al, 2014) and it is important that the capacity of technologies to help meet compliance is considered (MCEETYA, 2008). In the Ultranet that lead to teacher frustration at the difficulties encountered with the complex student login and passwords, particularly by younger students (Bailie, 2014). Chohan (2011) noted the importance of quick access to successful adoption of classroom technology.
Banning social networking sites is standard practice in DEECD schools although some schools use freely available wikis, blogs and media sharing sites for student learning (Tatnall et al, 2011). The Ultranet promised the incorporation of Web 2.0 technologies while protecting children from psychological, social and legal risks. (DEECD 2010a, p.3, 5).
The Ultranet came under significant scrutiny in terms of the safety and privacy of students and before it was released there were changes in functionality instigated by the VPC (Topsfield, 2010). Removal of learning contacts and wall from students express spaces took away students’ ability to “play, display, watch the replay” (Kuratko, Goldsworthy & Hornsby 2012). Students could now only share from within a collaborative space overseen by a teacher and not on their portfolio.
Conole (2012) found that Web 2.0 technologies had not been extensively taken up in learning and teaching due to challenges including entrenched existing practices of learners and teachers and the digital literacies required by teachers. Teachers were not seen as ready to adopt the social, participatory and just-in-time practices of modern learners.
MCEETYA (2008) recommends the use of ICT to increase parent engagement with their child’s school and learning. The Ultranet had potential for enhanced parental involvement (Tatnall & Dakich, 2011). Such systems are more likely to be adopted when the value for users is explicit but the Ultranet never got to the point where parents could see anything on the system that would entice them to look, let alone contribute (Davey & Tatnall, 2013; Topsfield, 2012).
The successful tenderer for the Ultranet adapted an old system instead of developing from the ground up (Tatnall et al, 2011) leading to the conclusion that experimental space design was not on the agenda. This lost opportunity to utilise latest technology lead to a clunky, unintuitive interface (Bailie 2014; Simpson 2012) which only referenced known knowns in its design and construction (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003). It is important that an online space reflect the qualities, values and beliefs of the education system therefore merely adapting something existing or using a generic design template is not a preferred option (Pohio & Lee, 2012, p.101). The information required to perform a task should be implicit in its design (Norman,1990; Kuratko et al, 2011) and a well-designed, user-friendly interface will enable user success (Pohio & Lee, 2012). Student engagement and achievement are optimised in purposefully designed curricula and learning spaces (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009).
Piloting is seen as high-risk compared to prototyping (McNabola, 2013). Prototyping accelerates innovation (Brown & Katz, 2011) and promotes creative thinking (Seidel & Fixson, 2013). There is no evidence of the Ultranet going through a prototyping procedure. The 2006 pilot version was built on a different platform (Griffin & Woods, 2006) to that which was eventually implemented (Williamson 2010; Tatnall et al 2011).
The Ultranet provided students with an ePortfolio, a tool that has been recognised as enhancing educational experience and developing life-long learners through sharing work in engaging Web 2.0 spaces (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Heinrich & Bozhko, 2012) but Ultranet portfolios could only be viewed by self-selected teachers, not peers and not parents (DEECD 2010b p.7).
Learning Management Systems (LMS) like the Ultranet are closed systems that require user accounts and permissions to access the learning space. In contrast most Web 2.0 tools are characterised by open access for sharing, exchanging and reflecting, providing benefits for learning (Heinrich & Bozhko, 2012). When LMS developers incorporate Web 2.0 functions like blogs, forums and wikis they lose their defining Web 2.0 characteristic of open access and often the engagement of the audience. Using systems that students are already comfortable with provides greater returns than investment in expensive systems that can do the job but whose unfamiliarity or required learning curve mean they are not used (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012). What is the place of an LMS when students can freely access email tools, wikis, blogs? (Conole, 2012).
The Ultranet was potentially Thornburg's “Telecosmic dream” (2007, p.11) having learning spaces of campfires, watering holes and caves however there was no natural balance of the three. (Tatnall et al 2011; DEECD 2010a, 2010b). The usefulness of the caves and watering holes available to students was limited by their inability to connect with other students outside the collaborative spaces which, being teacher-moderated, largely operated as campfires whereas Thornburg's watering holes are places for peer learning. The seven spaces of technology in school environments were only partially provided by the Ultranet. There were no secret spaces (McIntosh, 2010) as students could not interact with each other without teacher moderation. A disconnection from informal learning communities risks disconnection from a vital human attribute (Thornberg, 2007). Students had a portfolio where they could publish but only teachers could view.
Conclusion
“The Ultranet tried to be too much for too many and in the end became unwieldy, unmanageable and uncompetitive against private industry solutions that were more flexible and easier to use” (Simpson, 2012).
Tatnall et al (2013) concluded that the Ultranet was unsuccessful because of four specific failings. They were:
The Ultranet tried to pack in many features that were available elsewhere or that for which there was no demonstrated need (Tatnall et al, 2013). The Victorian Auditor General (2012) found that no single system could realistically fulfil all the requirements of the business case. Many users were unhappy with the functionality and the emphasis on privacy and security that put the system at odds with its potential for social learning (Simpson, 2012; Bailie, 2014).
But it was not all bad news. The initial trial (Griffin & Woods, 2006) was the catalyst for implementing real change in teaching and learning practices for Williamson (2010) and the experience established the value of personal learning networks for many teachers, and promoted collaboration and sharing between teachers across the state (Bailie, 2014; Seddon, 2013; Cashen, 2013).
Recommendations
“Make it new” (The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching and Learning. Peterson, Mau & Orr, 2010, no. 11). Adapting old technology may not be appropriate for future directions in learning; future systems must have the capacity to respond to new teacher, student and system needs, not simply replicate existing systems. (Williamson, 2010) “Plan for the unknown” and “Make classrooms agile” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 75, no. 23).
“Support great teachers” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 12) by prioritising teacher professional learning. Teachers need to be empowered to use the tools available to them (MCEETYA, 2008; Griffin & Woods, 2006). Use the opportunity to develop a community of practice of teachers (Wise & Tynan, 2012; Bates, 2014). Involve teacher education institutions so they can contribute to the professional learning needs (Tatnell et al, 2011). Ultranet coaches played an important role in developing capacity in schools; their withdrawal had a negative impact by damaging teachers’ perception of the value placed in the system by their employer (Tatnall et al, 2013).
“Move in together” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 33). Use open educational resources where possible and appropriate (Johnson et al, 2014; Conole, 2012) Spend less on infrastructure for tools that can be adapted from elsewhere. Use existing tools and leverage off existing social networks (Wise & Tynan 2012).
“Consult widely and early” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 35) to develop empathy with users (Brown & Katz, 2011) and fully understand the needs of stakeholders (Tatnall et al, 2013). Quickly develop low-risk prototypes instead of running expensive pilots (McNabola, 2013).
“Dream big and be brave” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 78). Exploit the strengths of successful modern learners (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Heinrich & Bozhko 2012) and allow them to make global connections (Stenger, 2013).
“Unleash learning” (Peterson et al, 2010, no.76). Identify, encourage and support the right champions. New technologies are frequently better adopted through sharing with peers than instructions from above. (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012). Find the quick (and sustainable) wins for teachers by identifying the features that are of maximum benefit with minimum training. For example, in the Ultranet this was Learning Tasks and Learner Profile (Tatnall and others 2013; Bailie, 2014).
“Form follows function” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 17). Keep it simple and streamlined. For example set up a single sign-on process whereby access to an official school network automatically enables access to other related systems (Griffin & Woods, 2006). Consider the differences in capabilities of all potential users - students as young as five years old up to eighteen years, teachers, education support staff, parents - to ensure ease of use.
“Display learning” and “Open the doors” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 15, no. 60). Utilise student eportfolios and other online options for publishing to an authentic audience to exploit the rich possibilities this provides (Dillenbourg, 2000).
References
Australian Education Union: Ultranet Implementation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/386574.html
Bailie, H. (2014). The Ultranet: a PMI. Retrieved from http://bbbb.global2.vic.edu.au/2014/10/12/the-ultranet-a-pmi/
Bates, T. (2014). The role of communities of practice in a digital age. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/01/the-role-of-communities-of-practice-in-a-digital-age/comment-page-1/
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by Design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381–383.
Cashen, M. (2013, June 29). The End of the Ultranet Era. Retrieved from http://melcashen.com/?p=758
Chohan, A (2011). Essa Academy - Learning Without Frontiers, Lon - YouTube. . Retrieved October 12, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EARTcJkNrDA
Claxton, G. (2008). What’s the point of school? Oxford: Oneworld
Conole, G. (2012). Open, social and participatory media, Chapter 4. In G. Conole, Designing for learning in an open world. New York, NY: Springer
Davey, W. and Tatnall, A. (2013) 'Social technologies in education - an actor-network analysis' in Ley, T.; Ruohonen, M.; Laanpere, M.; Tatnall, A. (ed.) Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning, Springer, Germany, pp. 160-169.
DEECD. (2010a). Ultranet. Getting started - release 1: resource for teachers (2nd ed.). East Melbourne: State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development).
DEECD. (2010b). Ultranet. Getting started - release 2: resource for teachers. East Melbourne: State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development).
Doorley, S. & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space : how to set the stage for creative collaboration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Fraudster. (2010). The Fraudulent Teacher: Ultraflop. Retrieved from http://fraudulentteacher.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/ultraflop.html
Griffin, P., & Woods, K. (2006) Evaluation of the pilot implementation of the Student@centre Ultranet in Victorian schools: Baseline results. Assessment Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative Design: an introduction to CK theory. In DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.
Heinrich, E., & Bozhko, Y. (2012). The Role of Institutions in Creating Student-Focused Virtual Learning Spaces with ePortfolio Systems. In M. Keppell, K. Souter, & M. Riddle (Eds.) Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern Learning Environment (pp. 119-135). Hershey, PA: . doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch008
Hunter, B. (2006). The eSpaces Study: Designing, Developing and Managing Learning Spaces for Effective Learning. New Review Of Academic Librarianship, 12(2), 61-81.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Kuratko, D. F., Goldsworthy, M., & Hornsby, G. (2011). The design thinking process. In Innovation Acceleration: Transforming Organizational Thinking (pp. 103–123). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Lamshed, R. (2012) The Transmoder Project: The Ultranet – doomed to fail? Retrieved October 08, 2014, from http://transmoder.com/2012/12/29/the-ultranet-doomed-to-fail/
Masanauskas, J. (2010) Teachers can't log in to education portal after students get day off. Retrieved October 08, 2014 from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/teachers-cant-log-in-to-education-portal-after-students-get-day-off/story-e6frf7kx-1225902952162
McIntosh, E. (2010). Clicks and bricks: How school buildings influence future practice and technology adoption, Educational Facility Planner, Volume 45, Issues 1 & 2. CEFPI. Retrieved from http://media.cefpi.org/efp/EFP45-1and2McIntosh.pdf
McIntosh, Ewan. (2011, November 29). Guy Claxton: What’s the point of school? Retrieved from http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2011/11/guy-claxton-whats-the-point-of-school.html
McNabola, A. (2013). Design for public good. The Design Council. Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/knowledge-resources/report/design-public-good
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Retrieved October 08, 2014 from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2008). Learning spaces framework: learning in an online world. MCEETYA, Carlton South, Vic.
Moyle, K. (2010). Building innovation : learning with technologies. ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic
Norman, D. A. (1990) The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Oliver, B., & Nikoletatos, P. (2009). Building engaging physical and virtual learning spaces: A case study of a collaborative approach. Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009.
Olsson, H. M., & Slumpi, T. P. (2013). Knowing My Peers: Edentity–To Invite Peer Interaction and Social Learning. In Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning (pp. 35-40). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Peterson, O. W. P., Mau, B., & Orr, D. W. (2010). The Third Teacher. [Kindle version] New York: Abrams.
Seddon, S. (2013). A positive look as we move to “Life after Ultranet.” Retrieved from http://totallylearnedas.com/2013/06/29/a-positive-look-as-we-move-to-life-after-ultranet/
Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: the application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices: adopting design thinking in novice teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 19–33.
Simpson, D. (2012). Lessons to be learned from the Ultranet – Did it work? Retrieved from http://www.learningteaching.net.au/index.php/diditwork2/
Sorensen, E. K., & Murchú, D. Ó. (2004). Designing online learning communities of practice: A democratic perspective. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 189–200.
Stenger, Marianne. (2013). Unlocking the Potential of Online Learning Spaces: Interview with Clarence Fisher - InformED : Retrieved from http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/unlocking-the-potential-of-online-learning-spaces-interview-with-clarence-fisher/
Tatnall, A. & Dakich, E. & Davey, W. (2011). The ultranet as a future social network: An actor-network analysis. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) (Bled, Slovenia)
Tatnall, A. & Davey, W. (2012). 'The ultranet and school management: Creating a new management paradigm for education' in Passey, D.; Breiter, A. & Visscher, A. (ed.) Next Generation of Information Technology in Educational Management, Part IV, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 163-170.
Tatnall, A. & Davey, W. & Dakich, E. & Wickramasinghe, N. (2013). The Ultranet: An eGovernment project management failure?. University of Maribor (Kranj, Slovenia)
Thornburg, D. (2007). Campfires in cyberspace: Primordial metaphors for learning in the 21st Century. Thornburg Center for Professional Development. Retrieved from: http://tcpd.org/Thornburg/Handouts/Campfires.pdf
Tomazin, F. (2010) Online schools portal goes live. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/online-schools-portal-goes-live-20100315-q9nd.html
Topsfield, J. (2010) Plug pulled on students’ virtual chatroom. Retrieved October 08, 2014, from http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/plug-pulled-on-students-virtual-chatroom-20100609-xwub.html
Topsfield, J. (2012). Clunky, outdated ultranet faces an uncertain future. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/clunky-outdated-ultranet-faces-an-uncertain-future-20121206-2aybz.html
Topsfield, J. (2013a) Ultranet ultimatum: Schools told pay up or lose it. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/government-it/ultranet-ultimatum-schools-told-pay-up-or-lose-it-20130628-hv0kl.html
Topsfield, J. (2013b) Schools’ Ultranet a failure. Retrieved September 12, 2014 from http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=A7EAAE282E418CC14B87703D3CD764A0?sy=nstore&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=542&clsPage=1&docID=AGE1306297L4EU59DJ9M
Ultranet rollout delayed by privacy concerns. (2010). [Text]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-10/ultranet-rollout-delayed-by-privacy-concerns/861294
Victoria. Auditor-General (2012). Learning technologies in government schools. [Melbourne, Victoria] Victorian Government Printer
Williamson, A. (2010). Ultranet Down! Retrieved from http://willie42.global2.vic.edu.au/2010/05/20/ultranet-down/
Wise, N., & Tynan, B. (2012). The DE Hub Virtual Learning Space: A Niche Social Network Community of Practice. In M. Keppell, K. Souter, & M. Riddle (Eds.) Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern Learning Environment (pp. 136-146). Hershey, PA: . doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch009
The Ultranet was an online learning management system intended to improve student learning by connecting students, teachers and parents. This case report will describe how it unfolded, provide a critical analysis of literature relevant to the conception and management of the case, and conclude with recommendations for similar endeavours.
“Time will tell whether the Ultranet turns into something really worthwhile or just another government White Elephant.” (Tatnall & Davey 2012, p. 169). Less than two years earlier Tatnall, Dakich and Davey had seen great potential in the Ultranet as a vehicle for monitoring student progress; teacher collaboration and professional learning, and increased active involvement of parents and the greater community in a new, social learning platform for students (2011, p.357). So what happened?
Case Development
The Ultranet, an online learning management system was introduced to government schools in Victoria during 2010. First conceived in 2004 (DEECD, 2010a, p.2) it was trialled as the Student@Centre Ultranet in 12 schools in 2006 (Griffin & Woods, 2006). There were significant delays in rolling out the system, including a second tendering process with significant reduction in the scope (1260 functions reduced to 131) (Tatnall, Davey, Dakich & Wickramasinghe, 2013; Tomazin, 2010; Lamshed, 2012), and a last minute recommendation from the Victorian Privacy Commissioner (VPC) to remove students’ learning contacts and communication wall (Topsfield, 2010).
The Ultranet was intended to connect students, parents and teachers across all government schools in Victoria, allowing for continuity as students progressed through the system or moved schools for other reasons. Another key intention was to provide a “one stop shop” for teachers to access learning tools, resources and student data. (DEECD, 2010a; 2010b).
In preparation the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) recruited 70 Ultranet coaches (DEECD, 2010a, p.2) who, from the beginning of 2009, worked with schools to develop understanding of the application of technology in education. In May 2010 they began their fundamental role of training the trainers - designated school lead users - and supporting the implementation of the Ultranet in schools.
The Ultranet was released in two stages. Stage one included: learning portfolios for students; collaborative learning spaces for teachers and students; design spaces for teacher collaboration; community spaces for the whole school community (including parents) or groups within the school or across multiple schools; capacity to store and share learning resources, and access to reviewed websites and digital learning objects. Stage two included Learning Tasks (for teachers to plan, deliver and assess learning activities for students) and Learner Profile (for sharing information about individual students with parents and teachers). Stage two was released late in 2010 but did not become fully functional until the middle of the following year. User experience generally was not good but there were some success stories; Learning Tasks appeared to fulfil a need not otherwise catered for (Bailie, 2014; Seddon, 2013).
August 9, 2010 was a state-wide pupil-free day to officially launch the Ultranet. Principals and assistant principals attended a launch function in the city while coaches and lead users were left to run Ultranet training sessions in schools. The system did not cope and crashed before 9am and did not recover that day. The media and opposition were quick to lay blame and confidence in the system was seriously compromised. (Tatnall et al, 2013, p.41; Masanauskas, 2010; Fraudster, 2010).
The November 2010 election saw a change of government and subsequent loss of support (Tatnall et al 2013, p.38). The May 2011 budget withdrew funding for Ultranet coaches from 2012 (Tatnall et al, 2013, p.41). In early 2012, as part of enterprise bargaining action, the Australian Education Union (AEU) banned further implementation activities. In December 2012 a report tabled in parliament found the Ultranet was poorly planned and implemented (Victoria. Auditor-General, 2012) including being more than 80 percent over budget and lacking intended functionality.
In 2013 the government announced that the Ultranet would become a user-pays system from the beginning of 2014 (Topsfield, 2013). The site has now disappeared.
Critical analysis
The critical analysis will first examine latent or existing attitudes and assumptions around social learning and virtual learning spaces, followed by exterior pressures and design constraints and finally look at the balance of pragmatism and the status quo versus experimental space design.
“But we’d like the students to be able to chat with students at other schools.” Primary teacher quoted in the Student@Centre Ultranet pilot study report (Griffin & Woods, p.34).
The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEECDYA, 2008) set two goals: for schooling to promote equity and excellence; and that all Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, active and informed citizens. So what is a successful learner? Powerful learners are sociable, they collaborate and share with others (Claxton, 2008). The importance of social opportunities in the learning process are well documented (Sorensen & Murchu, 2004; Wise & Tynan 2012; Conole, 2012) including the value of interactive collaboration for knowledge building, leading to the assumptions that learning is a social experience, and that young people are collaborative by nature (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Moyle, 2010). Successful modern learners are engaged by Web 2.0 technology which allows them to share experiences through easy to use, interactive, customisable and collaborative tools (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Heinrich & Bozhko 2012). If learners are to be enabled by Web 2.0 tools their teachers must also participate in distributed networks and have critical communicative, collaborative and creative skills (Conole, 2012). It is now assumed that teachers are competent in using technology for most aspects of their work (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014).
The design of a learning space, whether physical or virtual should encourage healthy social participation in both formal and informal spaces or communities (MCEETYA, 2008; Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Olsson & Slumpi, 2013; Wise & Tynan 2012). Additionally, Heinrich and Bozhko (2012) recognise that social learning opportunities, particularly those enabled by Web 2.0 tools, are an important factor in lifelong learning and in promoting learning activities beyond the traditional school day (Johnson et al, 2014).
The web is a modern learning environment (Wise & Tynan, 2012) but a web page is not a learning space unless it provides for social interaction (Dillenbourg, 2000). Web technologies support learning when they allow for community formation, content generation and peer critiquing (Conole, 2012). A space becomes social when the user can see others’ interests. A virtual learning space uses its authentic audience to advantage (Dillenbourg, 2000). The virtual learning space should be safe and secure, allow social interaction and collaboration, and put the students in charge of their learning. (Heinrich & Bozhko, 2012).
The intervention of the VPC which led to the removal of some of the social aspects of the Ultranet for students was just one part of the process that could be seen as negatively impacting its potential for success: “The Victorian Government is committed to giving every child every opportunity to experience the full potential of online learning, collaboration and information sharing” Bronwyn Pike, Minister for Education (Tatnall et al, 2011, p.350).
Dillenbourg (2000) found developing a school intranet is a bigger challenge than building on the Internet. The Ultranet was effectively a system-wide intranet for DEECD schools and thus challenged by the limitations of being responsible to a publicly elected entity. As a government project the Ultranet was subject to significant exterior pressures and design constraints including privacy and safety (Conole, 2012), the motivation of the government, and teacher capacity.
Safety of student data has been identified as a difficult challenge in the latest Horizon Report (Johnson et al, 2014) and it is important that the capacity of technologies to help meet compliance is considered (MCEETYA, 2008). In the Ultranet that lead to teacher frustration at the difficulties encountered with the complex student login and passwords, particularly by younger students (Bailie, 2014). Chohan (2011) noted the importance of quick access to successful adoption of classroom technology.
Banning social networking sites is standard practice in DEECD schools although some schools use freely available wikis, blogs and media sharing sites for student learning (Tatnall et al, 2011). The Ultranet promised the incorporation of Web 2.0 technologies while protecting children from psychological, social and legal risks. (DEECD 2010a, p.3, 5).
The Ultranet came under significant scrutiny in terms of the safety and privacy of students and before it was released there were changes in functionality instigated by the VPC (Topsfield, 2010). Removal of learning contacts and wall from students express spaces took away students’ ability to “play, display, watch the replay” (Kuratko, Goldsworthy & Hornsby 2012). Students could now only share from within a collaborative space overseen by a teacher and not on their portfolio.
Conole (2012) found that Web 2.0 technologies had not been extensively taken up in learning and teaching due to challenges including entrenched existing practices of learners and teachers and the digital literacies required by teachers. Teachers were not seen as ready to adopt the social, participatory and just-in-time practices of modern learners.
MCEETYA (2008) recommends the use of ICT to increase parent engagement with their child’s school and learning. The Ultranet had potential for enhanced parental involvement (Tatnall & Dakich, 2011). Such systems are more likely to be adopted when the value for users is explicit but the Ultranet never got to the point where parents could see anything on the system that would entice them to look, let alone contribute (Davey & Tatnall, 2013; Topsfield, 2012).
The successful tenderer for the Ultranet adapted an old system instead of developing from the ground up (Tatnall et al, 2011) leading to the conclusion that experimental space design was not on the agenda. This lost opportunity to utilise latest technology lead to a clunky, unintuitive interface (Bailie 2014; Simpson 2012) which only referenced known knowns in its design and construction (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003). It is important that an online space reflect the qualities, values and beliefs of the education system therefore merely adapting something existing or using a generic design template is not a preferred option (Pohio & Lee, 2012, p.101). The information required to perform a task should be implicit in its design (Norman,1990; Kuratko et al, 2011) and a well-designed, user-friendly interface will enable user success (Pohio & Lee, 2012). Student engagement and achievement are optimised in purposefully designed curricula and learning spaces (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009).
Piloting is seen as high-risk compared to prototyping (McNabola, 2013). Prototyping accelerates innovation (Brown & Katz, 2011) and promotes creative thinking (Seidel & Fixson, 2013). There is no evidence of the Ultranet going through a prototyping procedure. The 2006 pilot version was built on a different platform (Griffin & Woods, 2006) to that which was eventually implemented (Williamson 2010; Tatnall et al 2011).
The Ultranet provided students with an ePortfolio, a tool that has been recognised as enhancing educational experience and developing life-long learners through sharing work in engaging Web 2.0 spaces (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Heinrich & Bozhko, 2012) but Ultranet portfolios could only be viewed by self-selected teachers, not peers and not parents (DEECD 2010b p.7).
Learning Management Systems (LMS) like the Ultranet are closed systems that require user accounts and permissions to access the learning space. In contrast most Web 2.0 tools are characterised by open access for sharing, exchanging and reflecting, providing benefits for learning (Heinrich & Bozhko, 2012). When LMS developers incorporate Web 2.0 functions like blogs, forums and wikis they lose their defining Web 2.0 characteristic of open access and often the engagement of the audience. Using systems that students are already comfortable with provides greater returns than investment in expensive systems that can do the job but whose unfamiliarity or required learning curve mean they are not used (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012). What is the place of an LMS when students can freely access email tools, wikis, blogs? (Conole, 2012).
The Ultranet was potentially Thornburg's “Telecosmic dream” (2007, p.11) having learning spaces of campfires, watering holes and caves however there was no natural balance of the three. (Tatnall et al 2011; DEECD 2010a, 2010b). The usefulness of the caves and watering holes available to students was limited by their inability to connect with other students outside the collaborative spaces which, being teacher-moderated, largely operated as campfires whereas Thornburg's watering holes are places for peer learning. The seven spaces of technology in school environments were only partially provided by the Ultranet. There were no secret spaces (McIntosh, 2010) as students could not interact with each other without teacher moderation. A disconnection from informal learning communities risks disconnection from a vital human attribute (Thornberg, 2007). Students had a portfolio where they could publish but only teachers could view.
Conclusion
“The Ultranet tried to be too much for too many and in the end became unwieldy, unmanageable and uncompetitive against private industry solutions that were more flexible and easier to use” (Simpson, 2012).
Tatnall et al (2013) concluded that the Ultranet was unsuccessful because of four specific failings. They were:
- Failure to establish need for the system
- Failure of trust (particularly after the disastrous launch day)
- Failure of faith (particularly after the new government removed the Ultranet coaches)
- Failure to understand the needs of stakeholders.
The Ultranet tried to pack in many features that were available elsewhere or that for which there was no demonstrated need (Tatnall et al, 2013). The Victorian Auditor General (2012) found that no single system could realistically fulfil all the requirements of the business case. Many users were unhappy with the functionality and the emphasis on privacy and security that put the system at odds with its potential for social learning (Simpson, 2012; Bailie, 2014).
But it was not all bad news. The initial trial (Griffin & Woods, 2006) was the catalyst for implementing real change in teaching and learning practices for Williamson (2010) and the experience established the value of personal learning networks for many teachers, and promoted collaboration and sharing between teachers across the state (Bailie, 2014; Seddon, 2013; Cashen, 2013).
Recommendations
“Make it new” (The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching and Learning. Peterson, Mau & Orr, 2010, no. 11). Adapting old technology may not be appropriate for future directions in learning; future systems must have the capacity to respond to new teacher, student and system needs, not simply replicate existing systems. (Williamson, 2010) “Plan for the unknown” and “Make classrooms agile” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 75, no. 23).
“Support great teachers” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 12) by prioritising teacher professional learning. Teachers need to be empowered to use the tools available to them (MCEETYA, 2008; Griffin & Woods, 2006). Use the opportunity to develop a community of practice of teachers (Wise & Tynan, 2012; Bates, 2014). Involve teacher education institutions so they can contribute to the professional learning needs (Tatnell et al, 2011). Ultranet coaches played an important role in developing capacity in schools; their withdrawal had a negative impact by damaging teachers’ perception of the value placed in the system by their employer (Tatnall et al, 2013).
“Move in together” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 33). Use open educational resources where possible and appropriate (Johnson et al, 2014; Conole, 2012) Spend less on infrastructure for tools that can be adapted from elsewhere. Use existing tools and leverage off existing social networks (Wise & Tynan 2012).
“Consult widely and early” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 35) to develop empathy with users (Brown & Katz, 2011) and fully understand the needs of stakeholders (Tatnall et al, 2013). Quickly develop low-risk prototypes instead of running expensive pilots (McNabola, 2013).
“Dream big and be brave” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 78). Exploit the strengths of successful modern learners (Oliver & Nikoletatos, 2009; Heinrich & Bozhko 2012) and allow them to make global connections (Stenger, 2013).
“Unleash learning” (Peterson et al, 2010, no.76). Identify, encourage and support the right champions. New technologies are frequently better adopted through sharing with peers than instructions from above. (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012). Find the quick (and sustainable) wins for teachers by identifying the features that are of maximum benefit with minimum training. For example, in the Ultranet this was Learning Tasks and Learner Profile (Tatnall and others 2013; Bailie, 2014).
“Form follows function” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 17). Keep it simple and streamlined. For example set up a single sign-on process whereby access to an official school network automatically enables access to other related systems (Griffin & Woods, 2006). Consider the differences in capabilities of all potential users - students as young as five years old up to eighteen years, teachers, education support staff, parents - to ensure ease of use.
“Display learning” and “Open the doors” (Peterson et al, 2010, no. 15, no. 60). Utilise student eportfolios and other online options for publishing to an authentic audience to exploit the rich possibilities this provides (Dillenbourg, 2000).
References
Australian Education Union: Ultranet Implementation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/386574.html
Bailie, H. (2014). The Ultranet: a PMI. Retrieved from http://bbbb.global2.vic.edu.au/2014/10/12/the-ultranet-a-pmi/
Bates, T. (2014). The role of communities of practice in a digital age. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/01/the-role-of-communities-of-practice-in-a-digital-age/comment-page-1/
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by Design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381–383.
Cashen, M. (2013, June 29). The End of the Ultranet Era. Retrieved from http://melcashen.com/?p=758
Chohan, A (2011). Essa Academy - Learning Without Frontiers, Lon - YouTube. . Retrieved October 12, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EARTcJkNrDA
Claxton, G. (2008). What’s the point of school? Oxford: Oneworld
Conole, G. (2012). Open, social and participatory media, Chapter 4. In G. Conole, Designing for learning in an open world. New York, NY: Springer
Davey, W. and Tatnall, A. (2013) 'Social technologies in education - an actor-network analysis' in Ley, T.; Ruohonen, M.; Laanpere, M.; Tatnall, A. (ed.) Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning, Springer, Germany, pp. 160-169.
DEECD. (2010a). Ultranet. Getting started - release 1: resource for teachers (2nd ed.). East Melbourne: State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development).
DEECD. (2010b). Ultranet. Getting started - release 2: resource for teachers. East Melbourne: State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development).
Doorley, S. & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space : how to set the stage for creative collaboration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Fraudster. (2010). The Fraudulent Teacher: Ultraflop. Retrieved from http://fraudulentteacher.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/ultraflop.html
Griffin, P., & Woods, K. (2006) Evaluation of the pilot implementation of the Student@centre Ultranet in Victorian schools: Baseline results. Assessment Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative Design: an introduction to CK theory. In DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.
Heinrich, E., & Bozhko, Y. (2012). The Role of Institutions in Creating Student-Focused Virtual Learning Spaces with ePortfolio Systems. In M. Keppell, K. Souter, & M. Riddle (Eds.) Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern Learning Environment (pp. 119-135). Hershey, PA: . doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch008
Hunter, B. (2006). The eSpaces Study: Designing, Developing and Managing Learning Spaces for Effective Learning. New Review Of Academic Librarianship, 12(2), 61-81.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Kuratko, D. F., Goldsworthy, M., & Hornsby, G. (2011). The design thinking process. In Innovation Acceleration: Transforming Organizational Thinking (pp. 103–123). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Lamshed, R. (2012) The Transmoder Project: The Ultranet – doomed to fail? Retrieved October 08, 2014, from http://transmoder.com/2012/12/29/the-ultranet-doomed-to-fail/
Masanauskas, J. (2010) Teachers can't log in to education portal after students get day off. Retrieved October 08, 2014 from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/teachers-cant-log-in-to-education-portal-after-students-get-day-off/story-e6frf7kx-1225902952162
McIntosh, E. (2010). Clicks and bricks: How school buildings influence future practice and technology adoption, Educational Facility Planner, Volume 45, Issues 1 & 2. CEFPI. Retrieved from http://media.cefpi.org/efp/EFP45-1and2McIntosh.pdf
McIntosh, Ewan. (2011, November 29). Guy Claxton: What’s the point of school? Retrieved from http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2011/11/guy-claxton-whats-the-point-of-school.html
McNabola, A. (2013). Design for public good. The Design Council. Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/knowledge-resources/report/design-public-good
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Retrieved October 08, 2014 from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2008). Learning spaces framework: learning in an online world. MCEETYA, Carlton South, Vic.
Moyle, K. (2010). Building innovation : learning with technologies. ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic
Norman, D. A. (1990) The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Oliver, B., & Nikoletatos, P. (2009). Building engaging physical and virtual learning spaces: A case study of a collaborative approach. Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009.
Olsson, H. M., & Slumpi, T. P. (2013). Knowing My Peers: Edentity–To Invite Peer Interaction and Social Learning. In Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning (pp. 35-40). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Peterson, O. W. P., Mau, B., & Orr, D. W. (2010). The Third Teacher. [Kindle version] New York: Abrams.
Seddon, S. (2013). A positive look as we move to “Life after Ultranet.” Retrieved from http://totallylearnedas.com/2013/06/29/a-positive-look-as-we-move-to-life-after-ultranet/
Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: the application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices: adopting design thinking in novice teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 19–33.
Simpson, D. (2012). Lessons to be learned from the Ultranet – Did it work? Retrieved from http://www.learningteaching.net.au/index.php/diditwork2/
Sorensen, E. K., & Murchú, D. Ó. (2004). Designing online learning communities of practice: A democratic perspective. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 189–200.
Stenger, Marianne. (2013). Unlocking the Potential of Online Learning Spaces: Interview with Clarence Fisher - InformED : Retrieved from http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/unlocking-the-potential-of-online-learning-spaces-interview-with-clarence-fisher/
Tatnall, A. & Dakich, E. & Davey, W. (2011). The ultranet as a future social network: An actor-network analysis. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) (Bled, Slovenia)
Tatnall, A. & Davey, W. (2012). 'The ultranet and school management: Creating a new management paradigm for education' in Passey, D.; Breiter, A. & Visscher, A. (ed.) Next Generation of Information Technology in Educational Management, Part IV, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 163-170.
Tatnall, A. & Davey, W. & Dakich, E. & Wickramasinghe, N. (2013). The Ultranet: An eGovernment project management failure?. University of Maribor (Kranj, Slovenia)
Thornburg, D. (2007). Campfires in cyberspace: Primordial metaphors for learning in the 21st Century. Thornburg Center for Professional Development. Retrieved from: http://tcpd.org/Thornburg/Handouts/Campfires.pdf
Tomazin, F. (2010) Online schools portal goes live. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/online-schools-portal-goes-live-20100315-q9nd.html
Topsfield, J. (2010) Plug pulled on students’ virtual chatroom. Retrieved October 08, 2014, from http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/plug-pulled-on-students-virtual-chatroom-20100609-xwub.html
Topsfield, J. (2012). Clunky, outdated ultranet faces an uncertain future. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/clunky-outdated-ultranet-faces-an-uncertain-future-20121206-2aybz.html
Topsfield, J. (2013a) Ultranet ultimatum: Schools told pay up or lose it. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/government-it/ultranet-ultimatum-schools-told-pay-up-or-lose-it-20130628-hv0kl.html
Topsfield, J. (2013b) Schools’ Ultranet a failure. Retrieved September 12, 2014 from http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=A7EAAE282E418CC14B87703D3CD764A0?sy=nstore&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=542&clsPage=1&docID=AGE1306297L4EU59DJ9M
Ultranet rollout delayed by privacy concerns. (2010). [Text]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-10/ultranet-rollout-delayed-by-privacy-concerns/861294
Victoria. Auditor-General (2012). Learning technologies in government schools. [Melbourne, Victoria] Victorian Government Printer
Williamson, A. (2010). Ultranet Down! Retrieved from http://willie42.global2.vic.edu.au/2010/05/20/ultranet-down/
Wise, N., & Tynan, B. (2012). The DE Hub Virtual Learning Space: A Niche Social Network Community of Practice. In M. Keppell, K. Souter, & M. Riddle (Eds.) Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern Learning Environment (pp. 136-146). Hershey, PA: . doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch009
