I find myself agreeing with you, Eugene, on your conclusions about Learning Technologists.
Here is my picture of what has been going on in education. We have an established group of professionals, teachers/academics, who find themselves in situ when the biggest revolution of the modern era comes onto the scene - information technology, and its partner revolution, the internet/www.
What becomes obvious to pioneering distance educators such as the OU, is that this new medium (internet) and tools (IT) can transform the way learning is delivered. The potential of this medium is seized upon by management, but the implications of this new direction have to be delivered by the institution. Since teachers and academics are/were totally unqualified to operate in this new digital domain, someone needed to fill the gap - enter a brand new person, the learning technologist. I see this person (under 35, technologically qualified) as being the bridge between the teachers and the IT experts; someone who knows enough about IT AND enough about the specific learning situation to recommend/provide tools, platforms and support wisely.
Incidentally, this same digital transformation is going on in (every?) professional discipline today. Spreadsheets have transformed the job of accountants, CADCAM technology has transformed the job of design engineers, Enterprise Resource Planning systems have transformed the job of production planning engineers and purchasing professionals. So is education any different, or does every profession have its own equivalent of the learning technologist?
Others will have their own opinion about this, but I suspect that the individual focus of the learning process makes the job of the learning technologist much more specialised than that of an IT service provider to other professions. And, let's say that there is a separate and important professionalism called a learning technologist, is it simply a matter of time before the next generation (digital native) teachers and academics with a much more instintive feel for technology will gradually incorporate the role of learning technologist into their own role?
In my own practice, we use Tom Peters' (1999) model of Professional Service, one key element of which positions the job of a Professional Service as being one in which the Professional educates their client to be able to serve themselves. In the meantime, the Professional is developing themself to the next level, and is in a position to serve their client once again at the next level of competence.
This is a long winded way of saying that I think there will always be a role for learning technologists, but any professional accreditation that they establish must be about being the experts on what next, not what is.
Madeleine
Peters, T. (1999) Reinventing Work, the Professional Service Firm 50, Alfred A Knopf Inc, New York
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Reflection and Emotion
Since re-joining masters level studies in September, I have been reminded of the turbulence and emotion that accompanies the incorporation of new learning into my own thinking process. The period in which new input is being received, either by reading or through conversations of various kinds feels very stressful. Why would that be so? I suppose my existing 'certainties' have been reached over a significant period of time, and have been re-enforced by experience, which embeds them deeply into my sense of what is true. New information either fits in there, in which case, I have to find a way to make the links, or forces me to reconsider and revise my point of view. In a way, both of these scenarios is uncomfortable, which may account for the emotional reaction.. I think the worst part of the process is the part when the outcome feels uncertain. Just how does this fit? Have I been wrong in the past? Where does the new thought connect?
I am wondering whether my mistake is to keep ploughing on with trying to make the links? My normal way of working is to assume that if I work hard and stay focused, I will find the answer. But Anne Miller describes a mental process (in innovation) which is called hypnagogic creativity.
"It's important not to be always "on", because the creative process needs to alternate periods when you are energetically gathering information or thinking analytically with periods of quieter reflection to incubate ideas and listen to your intuition." (p52)
My recollection of Moon's description of the reflective process had a period in which the new ideas were absorbed. I am beginning to feel that it is important that I develop personal strategies for coping with this emotional period.
One strategy, of course,would simply be to take a break when I reach overflow point and deliberately do something that takes my mind off the subject under consideration.
A second idea is to engage in conversation with others who can add perspective to my thinking. One of two of my work colleagues are especially helpful in this regard, as they are well aware of my existing points of view and can counter them well.
The OU is also a place to see solace, either with tutor group colleagues, or possibly in the public areas of H808?
Maybe there are others?
Miller, A., (2009) How to get your ideas adopted (and change the world), Marshall Cavendish Ltd,. London
I am wondering whether my mistake is to keep ploughing on with trying to make the links? My normal way of working is to assume that if I work hard and stay focused, I will find the answer. But Anne Miller describes a mental process (in innovation) which is called hypnagogic creativity.
"It's important not to be always "on", because the creative process needs to alternate periods when you are energetically gathering information or thinking analytically with periods of quieter reflection to incubate ideas and listen to your intuition." (p52)
My recollection of Moon's description of the reflective process had a period in which the new ideas were absorbed. I am beginning to feel that it is important that I develop personal strategies for coping with this emotional period.
One strategy, of course,would simply be to take a break when I reach overflow point and deliberately do something that takes my mind off the subject under consideration.
A second idea is to engage in conversation with others who can add perspective to my thinking. One of two of my work colleagues are especially helpful in this regard, as they are well aware of my existing points of view and can counter them well.
The OU is also a place to see solace, either with tutor group colleagues, or possibly in the public areas of H808?
Maybe there are others?
Miller, A., (2009) How to get your ideas adopted (and change the world), Marshall Cavendish Ltd,. London
Monday, 9 November 2009
The Professional Debate
Activity 5.2 encourages us to consider definitions of profession, e-learning, and e-learning professional. I've been trying to get my head around this whole subject, and why it is worth this consideration, and here are some random thoughts.
So just what is a profession? The obvious examples of a profession would be a doctor or a lawyer; probably amongst the longest established professions that exist today. What is characteristic of the status of being a doctor or a lawyer is that you are privvy to knowledge and expertise that has been developed through learning from masters and that this learning is not easily gained. Time, commitment and often sacrifice have been devoted to earning the right to be described as a doctor or a lawyer.
Warrior, in her article, refers to the struggle that has been going on in teaching to establish itself as a respected profession. Progressively over the 20th century, job roles which demand a level of knowledge and expertise that requires commitment and particular expertise have sought to have that status acknowledged. Professional Institutes of all kinds are emerging; IMechE, Institute of Marketing, Institute of Personnel and Development..... and so on. Membership of reputable Professional Institutes is a guarantee of quality: such institutes are therefore concerned with allowing only suitably qualified individuals to join, and to providing members with the wherewithall to keep their professional skillls honed and practiced. As new technology has come onto the scene, IT Professionals have followed the Institutional path; an example of such an institute is the ICCP.
So, the burning question I think we are being challenged to consider is - does a e-learning as a profession deserve a separate professional category? Or do we find ourselves at a point in time when learning professionals have yet to integrate the use of the electronic medium into their normal practice?
Take another professional category - the Purchasing Professional. Anyone wishing to operate in that field today must be familiar with IT systems that enable Supply Chain Management and Enterprise Resource Planning. An awareness of how to use such systems effectively and to incorporate their features and benefits into the Purchasing Function is essential. Is the status of IT in learning any different to that? Is the inherent nature of learning as a profession different to other professions that are incorporating electronic media into their modus operandi?
I wonder what anyone else thinks about this?
So just what is a profession? The obvious examples of a profession would be a doctor or a lawyer; probably amongst the longest established professions that exist today. What is characteristic of the status of being a doctor or a lawyer is that you are privvy to knowledge and expertise that has been developed through learning from masters and that this learning is not easily gained. Time, commitment and often sacrifice have been devoted to earning the right to be described as a doctor or a lawyer.
Warrior, in her article, refers to the struggle that has been going on in teaching to establish itself as a respected profession. Progressively over the 20th century, job roles which demand a level of knowledge and expertise that requires commitment and particular expertise have sought to have that status acknowledged. Professional Institutes of all kinds are emerging; IMechE, Institute of Marketing, Institute of Personnel and Development..... and so on. Membership of reputable Professional Institutes is a guarantee of quality: such institutes are therefore concerned with allowing only suitably qualified individuals to join, and to providing members with the wherewithall to keep their professional skillls honed and practiced. As new technology has come onto the scene, IT Professionals have followed the Institutional path; an example of such an institute is the ICCP.
So, the burning question I think we are being challenged to consider is - does a e-learning as a profession deserve a separate professional category? Or do we find ourselves at a point in time when learning professionals have yet to integrate the use of the electronic medium into their normal practice?
Take another professional category - the Purchasing Professional. Anyone wishing to operate in that field today must be familiar with IT systems that enable Supply Chain Management and Enterprise Resource Planning. An awareness of how to use such systems effectively and to incorporate their features and benefits into the Purchasing Function is essential. Is the status of IT in learning any different to that? Is the inherent nature of learning as a profession different to other professions that are incorporating electronic media into their modus operandi?
I wonder what anyone else thinks about this?
Sunday, 8 November 2009
H808 Activity 5.2 Professions and Professional Values
My preliminary thoughts around definitions of Profession, E-learning, E-learning professional....
After what has felt like a most unproductive day of reading and digesting input, I return to yesterday's work on what I concluded were the main roles for e-learning professionals in my context:
* Learning Design
* Materials Design
* Learning Environment Design/Management
* Learning Technology
* Course Facilitation
* Coaching/mentoring
* Assessment of Student Learning and Evaluation of Programme Effectiveness
* Staff Development
* Learning Infrastructure Design/Maintenance
These roles are all relevant to a learning professional; someone who has subject matter expertise that is of value to students and who is able to create a context and has the skills and tools to engender effective student learning.
Arguably that definition applies equally to an e-learning professional, but that bald definition would overlook at least three important differences; the remoteness of the relationship between the e-learning professional and the student; the complexity of the electronic medium through which the learning is delivered; the opportunity that electronic media offers to create different relationships with students. Nonetheless, the outcome of e-learning professionalism ought to be the same as a learning professional - effective student learning. So is there a different professional definition? Hmmm.... to be continued;-)
After what has felt like a most unproductive day of reading and digesting input, I return to yesterday's work on what I concluded were the main roles for e-learning professionals in my context:
* Learning Design
* Materials Design
* Learning Environment Design/Management
* Learning Technology
* Course Facilitation
* Coaching/mentoring
* Assessment of Student Learning and Evaluation of Programme Effectiveness
* Staff Development
* Learning Infrastructure Design/Maintenance
These roles are all relevant to a learning professional; someone who has subject matter expertise that is of value to students and who is able to create a context and has the skills and tools to engender effective student learning.
Arguably that definition applies equally to an e-learning professional, but that bald definition would overlook at least three important differences; the remoteness of the relationship between the e-learning professional and the student; the complexity of the electronic medium through which the learning is delivered; the opportunity that electronic media offers to create different relationships with students. Nonetheless, the outcome of e-learning professionalism ought to be the same as a learning professional - effective student learning. So is there a different professional definition? Hmmm.... to be continued;-)
Saturday, 7 November 2009
H808 Activity 5.1 E-learning roles
The websites I have visited describe e-learning professionals from two different perspectives; those taking a national/international policy view (EIfEL (European Institute for E-Learning and New Zealand Ministry of Education ), and those taking an institutional or organisational view (Research Center for e-Learning Professional Competency and The Training Foundation). Unsurpringly the former focus much more on policy, infrastructure and management issues, whilst the latter focus on the skillset and competencies needed to deliver e-learning.
In both cases, the start point is assumed to be existing learning and development institutions and staff which require 'conversion' into the use/exploitation of information technology. This is very relevant to my own situation, where my business is keen to develop our existing face to face management training offering to be available in Distance Learning formats. To date, this learning is being provided by staff who have limited experience of operating as learning professionals in an e-learning context. They are, however, subject matter experts in their chosen areas of professionalism.
The e-learning professional roles (derived from the above research) that I believe apply in my own e-learning context are listed below. I have identified what I believe are the main developments that will be needed by the professionals in my context.
* Learning Design
E-learning design has a greater emphasis on constructivist principles and identification of the reflection required to enable deep learning. Designers must develop an understanding how technology/multi media can enable learning interactions to take place.
* Materials Design
Materials are a critical element of e-learning. Rather than just providing content input (which would be typical in the f2f setting), the emphasis should be to promote self directed learning, and prompt questions, connections and debates. Learner independence should be seen as a goal.
* Learning Environment Design/Management
* Learning Environment Design/Management
The classroom context in e-learning is very different to f2f, and can only work if the learner chooses to engage actively. Creating the right online environment - building rapport - will be a priority.
* Learning Technology
* Learning Technology
Build up the team's understanding of the range of technology options (CMC, wikis, podcasting, blogs, e-portfolios, social networking etc) for delivering e-learning. This knowledge must be constantly updated.
* Course Facilitation
* Course Facilitation
More hand's off than in a f2f practice. Encouraging of questions not just delivering content and supervising/debriefs. Less transmission, more discussion and expert 'responder'.
Coaching/mentoring
Coaching/mentoring
* The visibility of student reflections provided in the e-learning context enables us to offer much greater student support. Building the right bonds of trust and credibility are essential prerequisites for this relationship to thrive.
* Assessment of Student Learning and Evaluation of Programme Effectiveness
* Assessment of Student Learning and Evaluation of Programme Effectiveness
Exploit the opportunities to monitor student learning, such as e-portfolios and online discussions, that are offered in the e-learning context.
* Staff Development
* Staff Development
Provide staff with the chance progressively to join in with e-learning delivery (legitimate peripheral participation, Lave and Wenger, 1991) and encourage them to create their own PDP in e-learning practice.
* Learning Infrastructure Design/Maintenance
* Learning Infrastructure Design/Maintenance
The learning platforms we will use will be from 3rd party providers.
References:
http://cms.steo.govt.nz/eLearning/Projects/Tertiary+eLearning+Research+Fund.htm (accessed 5 November 2009)Research Center for e-Learning Professional Competency, http://elpco.a2en.aoyama.ac.jp/EN/index.cgi (accessed 6th November 2009).
The Training Foundation, http://www.trainingfoundation.com/index.asp (accessed 6th November 2009).
The Training Foundation, http://www.trainingfoundation.com/index.asp (accessed 6th November 2009).
EIfEL (European Institute for E-Learning), http://www.eife-l.org/ (accessed 5 November 2009)
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Parcitipation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Parcitipation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (?) ‘Tertiary (e)Learning Research Fund’ (online). Available from: Available from: http://cms.steo.govt.nz/eLearning/Projects/Tertiary+eLearning+Research+Fund.htm (Accessed 5th November 2009)
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
EC: Web Tutorial 4 Some random thoughts
The fourth and final FSW web tutorial focused on the Excellence audit results and how to interpret them. As pre-work, delegates were all asked to complete the audit themselves, so that they could understand the experience their clients will be going through. They were also provided with results from a real audit, and were asked to read through the practitioners guide section on the audit, and to begin to work out how they would interpret the data.
From the outset, it was clear that a couple, notably Gary and Berta, had spent time studying the data. Others may well have done the same, but did not speak out so confidently in the discussions.
The content delivered by us was quite significant, and I am still very thoughtful about whether this was the best way to deliver the material. For those who had studied the case study, it was probably fine, but others may have been a bit overwhelmed.
The dilemma over whether we should present any content in the webinar format is still on my mind. We will be issuing feedback questions to investigate the experience of the learners, and I am most interested to explore this question. There is no doubt that the students are hungry for input, but I am wondering whether that input needs to be more driven by their questions than by our description of our model.
From the outset, it was clear that a couple, notably Gary and Berta, had spent time studying the data. Others may well have done the same, but did not speak out so confidently in the discussions.
The content delivered by us was quite significant, and I am still very thoughtful about whether this was the best way to deliver the material. For those who had studied the case study, it was probably fine, but others may have been a bit overwhelmed.
The dilemma over whether we should present any content in the webinar format is still on my mind. We will be issuing feedback questions to investigate the experience of the learners, and I am most interested to explore this question. There is no doubt that the students are hungry for input, but I am wondering whether that input needs to be more driven by their questions than by our description of our model.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
TMA 1, What was Different?
TMA 1 was the first experience of putting together an assessed academic document in my new 'e-portfolio' era. I want to step back here and think about what was different, compared to my previous H802 and H804 experiences of TMAs.
The TMA 1 fell into two parts, one of which was a reflective summary, and the other of which was a more traditional critical reflection on the main learning of Blocks 1-4 of the course.
What was noticeable to me was that, as I had gradually cottoned on to the discipline of recording, organising and tagging my course work, the orderliness of my TMA reflections improved. So the least well organised thinking was from blocks 1 and 2 of H808, when I had really failed to grasp the full significance of what the modules were meant to be teaching me. This was a point that I had picked up in a couple of earlier blogs.
The reflective summary felt a great deal easier to complete than the normal academic assignment, as I had kept a pretty good record of my thoughts using my blog right from the very start. I suspect the other reason that it was easier was that I was working with material that had come from my own head, rather than having to describe material that is presented by others.
A second piece of learning, picked up from previous H80X experience, was that in my planning for the TMA, I outlined the main sections of the assignment, and limited myself to the right general proportion of words per section, in order to meet the TMA requirements. Although there then had to be some editing and reshaping of the final version, I am convinced that I wasted much less time than previously on too many words.
Another discipline that was new was that, having outlined the main sections of the assignment, I left the sections that I thought were the easiest (usually the introductory sections!) until the end, beginning with those where there were the most significant 'gaps' in my thinking. This had the emotional effect of me feeling relieved the closer I got to the finishing line - rather than the opposite effect of feeling like the steepest hills were still left to climb!
One slight confusion was that I have material stored in a few different places. I am tending to gravitate towards Google apps as the main organising centre for my thoughts, as it is such a ubiquitous application, and is incredibly easy to access. However, the formats and range of files types supported do make its use a bit limited. And the fact that the labelling of documents across the Google apps family is not identical is a bit frustrating. But I suspect the main issue for me to come to terms with is the need to be orderly right from the outset - not a natural mind set for me, as I have reflected previously.
So the mental notes to carry forward for the rest of H808 (and maybe my life?!) are;
In conclusion, I suspect that the big breakthrough on TMA1 was that being more organised makes the compilation of thinking for TMAs much more efficient. It remains to be seen whether the quality of what was produced is as good as, or better than, previous attempts;-)
The TMA 1 fell into two parts, one of which was a reflective summary, and the other of which was a more traditional critical reflection on the main learning of Blocks 1-4 of the course.
What was noticeable to me was that, as I had gradually cottoned on to the discipline of recording, organising and tagging my course work, the orderliness of my TMA reflections improved. So the least well organised thinking was from blocks 1 and 2 of H808, when I had really failed to grasp the full significance of what the modules were meant to be teaching me. This was a point that I had picked up in a couple of earlier blogs.
The reflective summary felt a great deal easier to complete than the normal academic assignment, as I had kept a pretty good record of my thoughts using my blog right from the very start. I suspect the other reason that it was easier was that I was working with material that had come from my own head, rather than having to describe material that is presented by others.
A second piece of learning, picked up from previous H80X experience, was that in my planning for the TMA, I outlined the main sections of the assignment, and limited myself to the right general proportion of words per section, in order to meet the TMA requirements. Although there then had to be some editing and reshaping of the final version, I am convinced that I wasted much less time than previously on too many words.
Another discipline that was new was that, having outlined the main sections of the assignment, I left the sections that I thought were the easiest (usually the introductory sections!) until the end, beginning with those where there were the most significant 'gaps' in my thinking. This had the emotional effect of me feeling relieved the closer I got to the finishing line - rather than the opposite effect of feeling like the steepest hills were still left to climb!
One slight confusion was that I have material stored in a few different places. I am tending to gravitate towards Google apps as the main organising centre for my thoughts, as it is such a ubiquitous application, and is incredibly easy to access. However, the formats and range of files types supported do make its use a bit limited. And the fact that the labelling of documents across the Google apps family is not identical is a bit frustrating. But I suspect the main issue for me to come to terms with is the need to be orderly right from the outset - not a natural mind set for me, as I have reflected previously.
So the mental notes to carry forward for the rest of H808 (and maybe my life?!) are;
- When reading and studying, store and oraganise new material with future use in mind (TMA/EC/work projects)
- At the outset of every piece of academic work, be clear what I want to get from the activity
- Where word limits apply to a piece of work, set these limits at the "organising of thoughts" stage
- Where possible, convert outside inputs (academic or otherwise) into a blog posting, so that these thoughts can begin to be incorporated into my own more fully.
In conclusion, I suspect that the big breakthrough on TMA1 was that being more organised makes the compilation of thinking for TMAs much more efficient. It remains to be seen whether the quality of what was produced is as good as, or better than, previous attempts;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
