8.1 Podcast URL

Here’s the URL for my podcast I’ve put together for activity 8.1

http://www.switchpod.com/users/simon/feed.xml

—

Episode 1 – TRANSCRIPT

Academic legitimacy of learning technologists

Hello, I’m Simon Allan and welcome to this, my podcast on academic legitimacy of learning technologists.

During my study on the Open University module, The E-learning Professional, I’ve explored the role of learning technologist and the types of professional competencies and attributes that such a role may encompass.

This included having a look at The Association for Learning Technology’s Certified Membership Scheme for learning technologists. Their prospectus provides insights into the range of specialisms that people working with technology in education may have. So as well as some core principles to work by like – a commitment to exploring and understanding the interplay between technology and teaching and learning – or – an empathy and willingness to learn from colleagues from different backgrounds and specialisms – there are a number of skill types that are also recognised such as research, evaluation, copyright or production of learning materials.

The role of learning technologist is highly significant in the immediate and long-term development of online, distance and distributed education. It is these people that provide the translation between technology developments and their application for learning and teaching. This of course involves closely working with learning facilitators. But in order to do this effectively, the practice of learning technologists shares some traits with traditional academic professionalism, that is, scholarly activity, yet there seems to be less published evidence of this from learning technologists.

Learning technologists Lisewski and Joyce, writing in the Association for Learning Technology journal in 2003, place emphasis on the importance for technologists to challenge the theories and principles they work with in order to establish their own academic legitimacy. Furthermore, I would suggest that scholarly practice is also critical in consolidating a professional identity for learning technologists that can become more easily recognised by other members of the academic community.

–
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 Available from: (accessed 8 December 2008)

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.