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 7.3 - Assessing PDP

Sources

Burgess, Hilary (n.d.) ‘Assessment: 2. Self and peer assessment’, The Higher Education Academy: Social Work and Social Policy (SWAP), [online] Available from: http://sorubank.ege.edu.tr/~bouo/DLUE/Chapter-08/Chapter-8-makaleler/Assessment%202_%20Self%20and%20peer%20assessment.htm (Accessed 4 December 2008).

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto ‘Teaching and Learning by Health Professionals:
Practical Issues and Approaches - Sample Learning Contract’, Department of Family and Community Medicine - University of Toronto, [online] Available from: http://dfcm19.med.utoronto.ca/GradStudies/CourseMaterials/t&l/learning_contract1.htm (Accessed 4 December 2008).

Make a note of any of these approaches that you think could be applied to your own context of practice.

I'm in favour of the "learning contract" idea and see the list of competencies that we've come up with from Unit 6 becoming very handy for developing such a contract. To support this would require a fairly standard framework (Burgess) that invites the inclusion of still more frameworks / rubrics that the PLOT tool suggests.

This is very similar to a learning contract idea that I saw implemented in an experiential / alternative education program that I was involved in as a Group Leader some 20 years ago (Katimavik in Canada). Here the participants (a small group of 12 young adults) carried out some personal and group reflection exercises .. and then designed their own mission / values statement .. then personal and/or group objectives. They also knew what resources were available to them so they could map out how they might achieve these objectives (i.e. hiring a nutritionist to learn how to eat properly). Assessment? There wasn't any formal assessment..

As I see it, we've potentially got the same thing going on here. We've looked at the mission / values associated with being a learning technologist.. and are asked to review these to come up with a set of objectives that are aligned with that mission / those values and then plot how we might achieve them .. preferably with input and support from fellow group or team members. Assessment? Part of it might include how successfully aligned one's personal development objectives line up with professional and personal values and principles.

On a related note, I've only recently been advocating the inclusion of pdps at my work as a means to aligning faculty and staff development with the University's mission to promote teaching excellence. I see this being realized so that limited resources are aligned to address University directives but at the same time, the professional or personal objectives of an individual.

In effect, the University's governing board outlines its own strategic goals, then invites the various colleges to interpret those goals as well as their own to create department specific "strategic plans". These in turn could be used by faculty and staff to produce their own pdps that address their specific professional needs but align them once again with those of their department. These could then be included as part of one's annual performance review.

Activity 7.2 - Clegg review - types of cpd

Source

Clegg, Sue, Tan, Jon and Saeidi , Saiedeh (2002) ‘Reflecting or Acting? Reflective Practice and Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education - Reflective Practice’, Reflective Practice , 3(1), pp. 131-146, [online] Available from: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/44605_751304133_713693219.pdf (Accessed 3 December 2008).

My take on the Clegg article?
There is no "one" way or method to realize effective cpd through reflection. In some cases, the argument is made that written reflection may in fact be counter productive - people either approach it as an exercise to meet the expectations of others or do quite alright without it entirely. However written reflection still seems to be used as a means to evidence pd.

Clegg suggests that there are essentially 4 general types of professional development strategies involving reflection and these have come about from research on people engaged in CPD. Key factors that determine selection?

• experience - the person needs to have a degree of experience before they have something to reflect upon
• time pressures - availability to carry out the task properly
• priority - judging when and how frequently such reflective work is required
• thinking styles - ie. one's whole thinking process was difficult to capture via written reflection (writing didn't crystalize ideas but undermined them)

Those 4 types?

• immediate action
• immediate reflection
• deferred action
• deferred reflection
  

This challenged my first interpretation of the chart where I thought that there might be a progression (i.e. encouraging someone to move from A through to D, that the quality and depth of one's reflection improved accordingly). Where did that come from? My assumption that the most meaningful and purposeful reflection would come out of deferment? Apparently not so.

Which perspective do I favour?

I actually favour the Dealtry version... because I believe in the need for some sort of macro view - a continuum for professional development to be purposeful and meaningful - thus most effective. The Clegg article is more of a micro look - important for opening my eyes to how cpd can be realized in any number of ways dependent on a variety of factors. I'm also conscious of how I might be inclined to accept as equally viable all four perspectives in my own professional development now .. when before I would have favoured D as being the most desirable.

In respect to TMA 2 .. ?

The readings point out to me that the road to professional development can take on a variety of different paths - dependent on one's macro view - Dealtry - where I am in my "learning how to learn" / my "incremental learning" .. and dependent on one's micro view - Clegg - where a variety of factors may determine my choice of action and reflection (and evidence of my development). Both perspectives, one explicitly and the other implicitly, promote the notion that such cpd requires our ownership to be most meaningful and purposeful.