6.5 CMALT ‘Specialist options’

Notes on supplemetary activity 6.5 – CMALT ‘Specialist options’

Research: Applicants should demonstrate an understanding of the value of research as a contribution to the knowledge of learning technology and its application. This should include evidence of:

a) the demonstration of research practice;

b) an understanding of research methodologies;

c) an understanding of research ethics and principles;

d) a commitment to sharing new knowledge.

Published to the course wiki today, but it needs reviewing in a few days time. I wanted to try to reflect a diversity in intelligences (practical, ethical and social) as this is what I think underpins professional values.

6.3 The profession of learning technologist

Relating the concept of a learning technologist to my own role:

Having read through the Oliver (2002) and Lisewski & Joyce (2003) papers, I’ve started to think about my role as that of a learning technologist. My job title is currently e-learning researcher, but my it differs from other research assistant positions within my organization. Research is certainly an important dimension of my role, but it encompasses the support and development of technology enhanced learning in other ways too. However, my orientation is teaching and learning rather than the technology itself.

Lisewski & Joyce (2003) comment on the adoption of Salmon’s (2000) five stage model for e-learning course design and suggests that there are dangers for those using it as an off the shelf solution stating that, “such reified models become the dominant structural paradigm in informing and defining professional identity and practice.” (Lisewski & Joyce, 2003) This is particularly relevant to my own practice at the moment as I am working with Salmon’s model in supporting e-learning course developments at the moment, and I can appreciate the authors’ perspective that adoption of exisiting methodologies does little for supporting “supporting academic legitmacy” for the learning technologist. Instead, they propose that such practitionewrs should be, “more self-critical of the ‘body of knowlegde’ and practice that we are drawing upon and seeking to legitimize.” (ibid.)

I strongly agree with this, but I would be interested to know whether practitioners with a familiarity with such methodologies do not already have strong “self-reflexive, questioning, contestable and research-based” (ibid.) tendencies in the way that they work anyway.

Oliver considers learning technologists to be ‘new professionals’, and perhaps this is a reason as to why I feel as though my own role is currently inaccuratley defined. He describes the role as being “hybrid, marginal and yet central to instituional processes of change”. This statement captures the diversity of skills I require for what has emerged to be a quite focused purpose for my role – supporting e-learning course development.

I do feel that Oliver reflects a scale between learning & teaching, and technology where a learning technologist may fall, depending on their fields of expertise. Based on the responses of ‘learning technologists’ he outlines key characteristics (my own comments in italics):

“• Centering on collaborative curriculum mdevelopment, usually intiated by an academic and focused on a particular piece of terchnology.” (Yes, but could also be initiated by the technologist and wider support team)

“• Typically including additional administrative, technical, research or mangement functions.” (Yes, and in my own experience knowledge of course design and developemtn procedures, and critically – SUBJECT KNOWLEDGE)

“• Being educative, using discussion, case studies and problems within the context of collaborations as the basis for reflection, and seeking to move the academic from the particular issues of implementation to more general educational issues.” (Very good statement as this articulates that it is the ambition of learning technologists to move away from the stereotype of ‘tech support’ and to make explicit to academic teams that there role is pedagogically oriented.)

“• Being situated, drawing on the ideas of communities of practice, and thus requiring the e-learning technologist to learn as well as teach during collaboration.” (And this will typically occur through research and reflection)

“• Being responsible but without authority, relying on goodwill, expertise and rhetoric to create opportunities (both practical and educational) and influence policy.” (Remarkably accurate to the affect of my own role)

The outline presented by Oliver resonates with my own practice, and as such I would have to use this as a foundation for any definition of a learning technologist.

—

Lisewski, B. and Joyce, P. (2003) ‘Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: designed and emergent practice in the learning technology profession’, ALT-J, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 55–66

Oliver, M. (2002) ‘What do learning technologists do?’ [online], Innovations in Education and Training International, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 245–52.

6.1 Notes on e-learning professionalism

EIfEL have contributed to, “the development and validation of the competencies of teachers, trainers and designers of learning resources and systems and key competencies.” Looking for more details at the moment…

EIfEL (European Institute for E-Learning), http://www.eife-l.org/ (accessed 21 November 2008)

______________

Warrior’s article reflects the multiple definitions of the term professional, and that this can often vary wildly depending on the working context. She refers to sporting professionalism as an example of how some modern ‘professionals’ are deemed only to be such because of their success. A more traditional standard is for a person to act within a set of principles within which resides a profession, therefore they are professional. Something like law, or medicine for example.

“The word professional is used to define a dignified occupation with an element of intellectual training or large mental expertise.” (p.54) At this end of the scale, a degree of intellectual prestige might be attached to professionals, thus endorsing the idea of a ‘trade secret’. I prefer to think of this as professional discourse, develop perhaps from a need to ensure adequate education for maintaining a standard of service as would be the case in medicine.

Warrior also reaffirms the teaching context as being service led, “a service which combines knowledge with practice.” She also comments on quality – for me this is a really important aspect of professionalism. If there is a system that recognizes and maintains standards, that contributes to professionalism because it provides a benchmark for practitioners to work within. However, a tension is raised. “It is simply not possible to identify professional, educational values from quantifying and collating materials… in an instant view. {Such evidence] fails to show any progression of the individual… and prposes that individuals willingly accept institutional values and do not question or modify practices, statutes or legislation as professionals should.” (p.57)

Comment on professional bodies: a collection of people who decide and maintain what it is to be a practitioner of a certain standard. Critically, these bodies should be made up of representatives from that field of practice. In education, are these bodies are unions?

KEY FEATURES: status and prestige; moral obligation; professional bodies; quality; institutional and societal values; reciprocal relationships. Taken from Warrior’s conclusion (p.58)

–

Warrior, B. (2002) ‘Reflections of an educational professional’ [online], Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, vol. 1, no 2. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/johlste/0030_warrior_vol1no2.pdf (accessed 21 November 2008)