Reflections on TMA 2

I spent a wack of time on Part 2 ... integrating my understanding of our work in Acitivity 5.2 with the concepts of good practice in elearning.. and applying reflection to unearth them. An excellent assignment in my view because of how it caused me to really reflect on the level and quality of my interaction in the assignment. Perhaps pinpointing strengths and weaknesses in my reponses (or non responses) at various stages within .. and challenging my near knee jerk reaction to cry "foul" for the absence of a more comprehensive framework to guide the activity.

Key observation?

It must be a real difficult balancing act for an elearning course designer to realize a properly scaffolded assignment. The balance is between not providing too much structure so as to avoid guiding learners in a prescriptive fashion.. and not providing enough structure so as to minimize student guess work as to the purpose of the project assigned.

What I did with the reflective component in TMA 1. I did with the essay component of TMA 2. I made the mistake of underestimating the demands of the question ... Great question .. but not enough time for me to "weave" the assortment of themes the activity asked us to review - values, good practice, pd issues, pd strategies, evidence selection, reflection, collaboration, assessment, support tools .... to then reflect upon their relevance in my own context (my choice of contexts to use) to realize a comprehensive and well organized enough answer.

Key observation?

Caused me to conclude the need to have a comprehensive professional development plan that is self directed, "do"able and supported by solid evidence.... and to execute it to support other possibilites. I am keen to realize some sort of post H808 learning community to realize some sort of online community that supports peer review / collaboration. I think I may even be a candidate for the CMALT accreditation some time down the road..

Lessons learned from the TMA this time? Start even earlier with the ECA. Perhaps getting both the reflective component and eportfolio component behind me so that I can concentrate on the final essay.

Activity 7.1 - another CMALT value?

Sources

Cheer, Peter (2008) ‘core activity 7.1’, H808 - aeb324 Unit 7, [online] Available from: fcp://@oufcnt1.open.ac.uk,%231004824/H808%2008I%20Annes%20Group/H808%20aeb324%20Unit%207%20/%23161962613 (Accessed 4 December 2008).

CMALT (n.d.) ‘CMALT Prospectus ’, [online] Available from: http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/cmalt-prospectusv4.pdf (Accessed 30 November 2008).

The CMALT Prospectus mentions the following ‘values’

1. A commitment to exploring and understanding the interplay between technology and learning.
2. A commitment to keep up to date with new technologies.
3. An empathy with and willingness to learn from colleagues from different backgrounds and specialisms.
4. A commitment to communicate and disseminate effective practice.

The oath of a profession typically dictates adherence to ethical standards, which invariably include practitioner/client confidentiality, truthfulness, and the striving to be an expert in one's calling, all three of these being practiced above all for the benefit of the client. There is also a stipulation about upholding the good name of the profession.

Well out of the wikipedia entry the only one that seems to match is striving to be an expert in one's calling. As a sceptical pragmatic techie who likes things to have practical purpose, well defined meaning and measurable outcome it seems to me that apart from A commitment to exploring and understanding the interplay between technology and learning these ‘values’ could apply to any occupation whether ‘professional’ or not.

- Peter Cheer

I noted in 7.1.1. how we were asked to think of any other values that we perceive to be relevant but are not not included with the 4 in the CMALT prospectus .. and one came to mind

5. a commitment to recognizing how one's work is ultimately intended to serve the best interests of students

It sounds so obvious. I'd argued that it (along with the other 4 values) grounds everything that we do as learning technologists. To not include it .. seems to suggest that it will simply happen .. which I don't believe is necessarily the case.

Activity 6.4 - CMALT and LSN certification schemes - my observations

Sources

CMALT (n.d.) ‘CMALT Prospectus ’, [online] Available from: http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/cmalt-prospectusv4.pdf (Accessed 30 November 2008).

The Learning and Skills Network (2007) ‘A Professional Development Framework for E-learning’, [online] Available from: https://oufe.open.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.learningtechnologies.ac.uk/files/0627161Framework.pdf (Accessed 2 December 2008).

Lessner, Ellen (2007) ‘CMALT experience - an individual perspective ’, [online] Available from: http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/Ellen_Lessner_CMALT_experience_200711203.pdf (Accessed 2 December 2008).

Lisewski, Bernard and Joyce, Paul (n.d.) ‘Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: Designed and emergent practice in the learning technology profession’, [online] Available from: http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/resourcepage/view.php?id=90970&direct=1 (Accessed 24 November 2008).

Oliver, Martin (2002) ‘What do Learning Technologists do?’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 30(4), pp. 245-252.

Write a short 300 word account of what you have learned about the development and certification of elearning practitioners in this unit.

Much of the interest in accrediting learning technologists comes from a recognition of

• the isolation common to many learning technologists (including myself) (Oliver)(Lessner)
• the problems with credibility (i.e. academics not recognizing the expertise / competencies that a LT role can hold and instead reducing the position to a service provider or enabler; their practices are poorly understood (Oliver) (LSN) ; involves more than simply selecting from an off the shelf arsenal of products / services (Lisewski)
• the unique nature of the position (autonomy, without authority, yet still being promoted as a strategic change agent) .. (Oliver)

It appears that learning technologists have moved to address these (and other) issues first through the formation an association (ALT), and secondly through the set up of accreditation (CMALT or LSN). Such efforts also raise the profile of research in learning technology and the pursuit of professionalism by Learning Technologists.

While not directly stated, it's clear that this work ultimately improves credibility and respectability for the LT position. (CMALT prospectus) (LSN) .

My own review of competencies yielded some important insights.

The LSN competencies were subdivided by role - general practitioner, policy maker, expert adviser, developer, leader. This proved to be much more interesting because it pointed out to me just how many "hats" one can wear as an Learning Technologist .. and the need to switch those hats - i.e. from learner to adviser to leader.. Which lead me to suggest yet another challenging competency - the need to know when to switch those hats .... thus I'm deducing the need to be a fairly seasoned communicator in order to recognize that.

Based upon my interpretation and review of the competencies from CMALT, all six of my pdp objectives tied into atleast one of the CMALT Core competencies.. and in three pdp objectives a CMALT Specialist competency was identified. Noticeable was a focus on operational issues in 4 of the 6 objectives. This has me wondering if I am unknowingly "complying" with management's view of me as an learning technologist as "service provider"(?).