Activity 10.1 - putting knowledge into practice

A report to second language instructors on how and why they might want to use wikis for second language learning. Possible issues to contend with and possible strategies to help overcome them. Concludes with a comprehensive bibliography for instructors to review as follow up to the handout.

Wikis and second language learning: What's all the fuss?

There is currently a lot of interest in wikis for educational purposes. What is a wiki? Is this interest valid? What is all the excitement about? A review of current literature suggests the following general reasons for this interest and its relevance to students.


A wiki is essentially a website that

• is easy to create, easy to author, easy to use (like an online virtual word processor) .. thus students of almost any age can help build
• supports dynamic content; this can come in many different digital forms (not just text but pictures, slide shows, audio and video as well) all of which can be added, arranged, edited, reviewed and commented upon by some, any, or all students ..
• promotes reflection , review and revision of one's work ; ..individual students can find, filter and assemble digital content that reflects their interest, and understanding of a class assignment .. and review, revise it if their ideas or understanding of concepts change as a result of interactions with their peers
• promotes collaboration with peers .. thus students can not only share their own understanding of a project but review the work of their peers to then learn from one another, negotiate understanding, collectively construct meaning and then work as a group to collate this work and then present it as a finished group presentation
• promotes tracking of development .. students can view a history of the wiki's revisions to track what revisions were made, when and by whom .. to make comparisons between iterations .. and track their development / learning
• is free and accessibile 24/7 .. thus students can work individually or as groups at home or at college
• can be made available to a real audience .. thus students can opt to present their finished presentations so that they can be shared with a real audience whether that be the class, the school, the region, the world AND invite that audience's reviews and comments

>(video)
A TV like commercial for why an educator might want to use a wiki. (alwaygolf, 2007)
Duration - 1:12 min


Wikis in second language learning

On a macro level, second language learning involves practicing and mastering a communicative process. Much of that mastery is realized through the creation of many presentations - initially short but gradually getting longer as the student masters grammar and expands their vocabulary. A wiki can support that development through its ability to


1. record revisions at any stage of the writing proces
2. invite students to work collaboratively at any or all stages of the writing process
3. support a variety of digital media that can be used to support a student's message
4. share the product of the writing process with a real and broad audience.


1) Revision / archiving

Students create writing presentations in a wiki much like they would in a word processor. However each editing of a wiki presentation is automatically saved as an iteration that can be viewed or even restored at a later time . As a result, that writing process is made much more transparent to a student then can be realized using conventional paper. Students can see the various iterations that led up to their final presentation to review the stages of their presentation's development. But these iterations can also be shared with friends, peers and instructors to invite their comment. As a result, a student can receive more frequent and potentially more meaningful feedback to reflect upon their work which can then be used to determine how to improve the effectiveness of their message. Thus students move closer to understanding the true focus of writing presentations - to ensure their message is clearly presented and its purpose clearly understood by an audience.

On a micro level, language development typically requires students to practice construction and discriminant selection of grammar, vocabulary and punctuation to learn how to clearly communicate in a foreign language. Wikis afford students the chance to review and build upon previous work. For example, beginners may be asked to construct simple sentences with the limited vocabulary that they have. As they learn more about new, more complex vocabulary, grammar or syntax structures, they can return to these simple sentences to add what they have learned to these earlier sentences to make them more complex.

Note how the same iterations recorded by the wiki can also help students to review what they have learned and identify where and how their learning took place. Thus for possibly the first time, we have the opportunity to help students develop the life long skill of learning not only a language but "how they learn" a language (Dealtry, 2004) .

2) Collaboration

This same writing process can also be done via small groups thus inviting still more learning opportunities. Here students can check their understanding of ideas by practicing and using new key words, grammar constructions and syntax with their peers, reflecting on their peers responses. Then students can collaborate with others in their group on the choice of these same language tools with the goal of finding the best way to communicate a desired message. Such a process moves students away from understanding language learning as memorizing and discriminating how to apply various vocabulary, grammar and formulaic writing patterns to communicate. Instead students come to understand language learning as a collaborative and communicative activity first. Communicating a clear message becomes their motivation to learn.

3) Inclusion of digital media

Thanks to social networking tools such as instant messaging, Facebook and YouTube, a significant part of today's student culture encourages the use and development of a number of digital communications skills - one of those skills is actually writing (Lenhart et al., 2008) . A wiki can invite students to include these same skills to support clear communication of their message. This brings into a formal learning environment, these student interests and skills. It also invites practice and discussion on integrating other communicative strategies such as the selection of fonts, graphics, sounds, photos and videos to support such messages. By doing so, students are not only more motivated but also learn the importance of aligning visual or aural messages with those communicated through their writing to again strengthen their message - a communicative approach that is highly relevant in today's society.

4) share their message with a real and broad audience.

Traditional presentation practice has been done by students for an audience of one - the teacher - or perhaps for a class of students but rarely further. With the help of a wiki, students can now review, reflect and refine their message to a point where they feel ready to present their work to a real and much broader audience. These audiences can now be in the target language, something that was much more difficult to realize before. These audiences could be more proficient second language students in the same school or native speakers in another part of the world. These same audiences can also be invited to engage in a dialogue with students on the message of their presentation. As a result, students learn through one of the most important forms of assessment - real feedback from a real audience on the effectiveness of their efforts to construct a purposeful and targeted message.


Typical obstacles to expect in realizing effective use of wikis

In order to be successful, second language teachers can typically expect to face the following technical and pedagogical challenges.To begin, teachers need to ensure that whatever wiki tool they choose, is easy to access and use. Students should not be faced with the need to draw away already limited time for language learning, to learn how to use the technology to realize their presentation. Teachers should note that the majority of wikis require users to apply wiki code to realize them. Fortunately some wiki utilities such as Wetpaint (Wetpaint) exist that make the need for knowing even this simple code unnecessary.

Teachers should also understand and support the principles of constructivist instruction to realize effective student collaboration. This entails realizing a clear alignment of group based, collaborative activities with sound language learning objectives and their assessment. Note also the importance of a clear rubric to outline how students will be assessed. The absence of a traditional linear sequenced activity structure may be daunting for some students not accustomed to the more open structure of group collaboration.. thus the importance of a clear rubric to outline to students what is required, and within what limitations. This almost always entails providing students with time and resource parameters, and inviting students to take time to understand and assess who their intended audience is.

The absence of conventional traditional teacher filtering of online content can also seem foreboding. The responsibility for control of content selection shifts to the student. Teachers can invite students to engage in this filtering information literacy exercise so that they learn to judge and take control of it themselves. While this can seem a daunting responsibility for students to assume, often students learn to take on the responsibility for filtering not because of the teacher's need for it but because of their intended audience's need for it.


Important follow up resources and examples

alwaygolf (2007) ‘Teaching with WIKI’, YouTube, [online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=mdOKUeT0O-o (Accessed 15 January 2009).

Dealtry, Richard (2004) ‘Emerald: Professional Practice - The savvy learner’, Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), pp. 101-109, [online] Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0860160110.pdf (Accessed 3 December 2008).

Department of Education and Training - Western Australia ‘Wikis in the Classroom’, [online] Available from: http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/cmis/eval/curriculum/ict/wikis/ (Accessed 13 November 2008).

Ferris, S.P. and Wilder, Hilary (2006) ‘Uses and Potentials of Wikis in the Classroom’, Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(5), [online] Available from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=258&action=article (Accessed 7 January 2009).

Fryer, Wes ‘Teach Digital: Curriculum by Wes Fryer wiki / wikis’, Teach Digital" Curriculum by Wes Fryer | wikis, wiki, [online] Available from: http://teachdigital.pbwiki.com/wikis (Accessed 13 January 2009).

Lamb, Brian (2004) ‘Wide Open Spaces: Wikis, Ready or Not ’, EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), pp. 36-48, [online] Available from: http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/WideOpenSpacesWikisReadyo/40498 (Accessed 7 January 2009).

Lenhart, Amanda, Arafeh, Sousan, Smith, Aaron and Rankin Macgill, Alexandra (2008) Writing, Technology and Teens, Reports: Family, Friends & Community, US, [online] Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3.pdf (Accessed 15 January 2009).

Lefever, Lee (2007) ‘Video: Wikis in Plain English’, Common Craft - Explanations In Plain English, [online] Available from: http://www.commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english (Accessed 13 November 2008).

Leuf, Bo and Cunningham, Ward ‘For Teachers New to Wikis’, [online] Available from: http://writingwiki.org/default.aspx/WritingWiki/For%20Teachers%20New%20to%20Wikis.html (Accessed 13 November 2008).

Patterson, Reginald (n.d.) ‘Using Wiki - the Right Way - a knol by Reginald Patterson’, [online] Available from: http://knol.google.com/k/reginald-patterson/using-wiki-the-right-way/t7omkuodtii0/4# (Accessed 11 January 2009).

Peachey, Nik (2008) ‘Learning technology teacher development blog: Using wikis with EFL students’, [online] Available from: http://nikpeachey.blogspot.com/2008/05/using-wikis-with-efl-students.html (Accessed 13 November 2008).

Wetpaint ‘Group Project Wikis - Wikis in Education’, Wikis in Education, wiki, [online] Available from: http://wikisineducation.wetpaint.com/page/Group+Project+Wikis (Accessed 10 January 2009).

Wetpaint ‘Higher-Ed Wikis - Wikis in Education’, Wikis in Education, wiki, [online] Available from: http://wikisineducation.wetpaint.com/page/Higher-Ed+Wikis (Accessed 10 January 2009).

Wetpaint ‘Student Created Wikis ’, Wikis in Education, [online] Available from: http://wikisineducation.wetpaint.com/page/Student+Created+Wikis (Accessed 10 January 2009).

Wetpaint ‘Wikis in Education ’, Wikis in Education, wiki, [online] Available from: http://wikisineducation.wetpaint.com/ (Accessed 10 January 2009).

Wetpaint ‘Wikis in the Classroom ’, Wikis in Education, wiki, [online] Available from: http://wikisineducation.wetpaint.com/page/Wikis+in+the+Classroom (Accessed 10 January 2009).

Activity 9.2 - synthesizing educational use of blogs (suggestion)

from Jim Buckingham (January 6, 2008)

Suggestion

Wondering if the rest of you have encountered similar issues with the wiki here.
would like to suggest the use of

1) a better collaborative tool ?
The Open U wiki while basic and adequate for realizing this, may slow us down in realizing the task. Nigel's suggestion to use Google docs - likely a spreadsheet - is a good alternative on the grounds that it's easy to use, has limitless width, has a built in chat tool to facilitate collaboration, and supports "real time" revision (i.e. I can "see" another person revising whereas this one blocks out everyone until the person on is finished) . Another suggestion is a wiki in Wetpaint. I've set one up at this link to a wetpaint site and I've got a Google Spreadsheet ready to go .

• Google docs ..New development: now this page opens direct at this link (no gmail account needed?)
• http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pFZM7Vxc2GIEr9BpGoDRmWw

• caveat w/ Wetpaint .. people need to register to get on http://h808annesgroup1.wetpaint.com/ but once on can immediately begin editing

2) a communications tool to support interaction?
I think Google docs has a built in chat function which can be used alongside the spreadsheet.
With Wetpaint, I can add an easy to use chat widget next to the spreadsheet or we could use the discussion threads that are automatically included at the bottom of the page.

In an effort to support such a move, I'll try to copy what has been realized here into both of these options for now..

_________________________________

from Jim Buckingham (January 7)

Note

I'm not fond of simply posting and responding via the wiki (to put it mildly) . I am really missing some sort of a communications tool to be used alongside it.... to make decisions .... especially when we're all time starved. Latency between each other's posts makes this exercise seem like its going on for an eternity - sort of like "Chess by mail" (a bit of an exaggeration but if anyone has had the experience ... you would immediately "get it") .

Now that I've vented :-) ... Can't spend too much more time with this exercise ....

Activity 9.2 - Synthesizing the educational use of blogs (group activity)

(copied from H808 wiki website - January 12, 2009)

This is the link to the final version of a synthesis of educational blog categories (in Google Docs) with contributions from Jim Buckingham, Julie Carle; José Martel Peñate; Emma Nugent; Nicola Robinson; Keely Laycock and Nigel Smellie.

We're sure it's not a final document and many of you can add to it, we started with approx 15 categories and through discussion and voting, Nigel was able to reduce this to 3 over-arching categories.

If anyone on H808 has any comments on our group work please post them here or to the H808 Cafe where we held our discussion.

For good measure a copy of this same FINAL TABLE is also posted to a further page in this wiki.

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 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"(?).

Reflections - Activity 6.3 - what does a learning technologist do?

Sources

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.

What do learning technologists do?
I've only been assuming this postion for a few months now and I can really relate to both the Oliver and Lisewski articles.

Yes... I see a big part of my job as a Education Technology Specialist (i.e. Learning Technologist) is having a certain amount of autonomy in how I interact with "clients", yet little if any authority to direct change, instead its a matter of presenting experiences, ideas and suggestions (expertise) to "guide" a "client" to another way to realize their instructional objectives. They typically seek me out formally (via email requesting an appointment) or informally (over lunch or a chat in the hall). Yet critical to it is fostering a non threatening relationship with potential "clients" so that they feel comfortable about discussing such things. It sounds curiously similar to a relationship that you might find between a patient and a therapist, where there's a need for "confidentiality", and the building of "trust" or building a non threatening, safe environment for open dialogue because in many cases, the potential client feels insecure about raising the issue. They often apologetically present themseleves as unfamiliar with something, feeling vulnerable in doing so, so that they realize they need to learn more, that they are depending on me for guidance.. yet ultimately the final decision on "if" they will move forward rests with them.

Curiously enough, I've never seen such a "soft skill" presented in any LT job description. While the expertise, experience and rhetorical discourse are important, I've discovered just how critical nurturing this sort of relationship is to realizing the next step - being "invited" to enter into such a dialogue and then present one's expertise or opinions to help inform opinion. Thus the point made about "investing considerable time in building goodwill and strong collaborations across the institution" (Oliver p 249)

I'm equally curious about how many others in the cohort share this observation.

I also see a strong need to be challenging things ... even those presented by my colleagues in the department. They have been tempting me to use "off the shelf" solutions (with best of intentions I might add) .. yet I've resisted on the very grounds mentioned by Lisewski - the need for them to be challenged as to their relevance to our context. At issue here, is the use of screen cams from Atomic Learning and my insistence on the need to use self authored screen cams using Jing. This on the grounds that Jing produced resources are easy to produce, easier to access and invite greater familiarity and thus more built in support for our end users - namely faculty. Atomic Learning videos are more difficult to get to (require password and then navigation to a set example), and are not context specific .. thus requiring the "target learner" to build the relevance and context themselves .... to understand the purpose of the support resource.

Activity 6.2 - The Profession of Learning Technologist

Source

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

Wow!!
This has been a tremendously useful article to me for a number of reasons.. Number one? It's given me a clearer sense of the unusual nature of the educational technologist position - one that in essence, I have but with a different wording - Senior Educational Technology Specialist.

The three categories of LTs

• new specialists - multiskilled, going from place to place with learning technology as the core of their identity
• academics who have incorporated learning tech into their existing professional identity
• learning support professionals who are in non academic roles but support access to and effective use of learning technology

I really have to wonder which of these three classifcations I and others in my H809 cohort fall into. (create a survey) . I have always considered myself an educator first and directly involved in the use of technology in education for at least fiften years now. In the last 10 years I've worn the EFL instructor hat but that's also been a field active in finding ways to integrate technology to realize learning outcomes.

I feel I've aspects of all three....

LTs need each other .. but why aren't they connected and where are they to connect?

No 1 ranking was the need to keep abreast of current developments in learning technologies. Yes.. and typically not directly supported or assessed by my current employer.. seems to be too little time to realize this... thus fostering my need to network with others to see how they realize this ... I've been actively seeking out such online communities and have found them in all shapes and sizes. To make the task more manageable, I've chosen to connect with those that are from back home.. But noticeably absent is any work on similar online communities in the Gulf region thus encouraging me to perhaps realize this to support networking amongst other LTs in this region.

Typical job description? collaboration

Oliver mentioned a three step process .. essentially

• Step 1 - identify opport for collaboration w/ discipline based academics
• Step 2 - provide meaningful input to the collaboration (tech advice) and using the opport to learn more about the collaborator's values, concerns, and context
• Step 3 - select, adapt, and present relevant "cases", expertise, research material, to support, challenge, foster refection for critical discussion with collaborator

Note that this suggests an advising role but an LT is armed with a fair amount of knowledge that can in effect direct the instructor in their selection of tools to meet instructional objectives. This really rang true to me - personal experience with it and it was conforting to see this spelled out in such clear cut terms. An LT is in effect, a change agent - armed with information about tech, but also armed with an understanding of learning theories so that there is some understanding of how the tech can be integrated into instruction. At least one very important, missing ingredient to make change happen .....?

Context is king!

However, for any of this to happen, understanding the "needs' or "interests" or "culture" of the instructor has to be seen as a clear cut starting point before anything can be realized. Oliver's use of the term "learner centered model for professional development" summarizes this.. and is something I've direct experience in doing, each time I work with a faculty member. I still struggle with the description of this being a model of professional development as "expert learning".

Professional aspect?

This need for specialized knowledge and deeper understanding of a variety of elements -

• managing change,
• collaborating with a wide variety of clients
• understanding pedagogical frameworks / learning theories

Self monitoring of when and how to introduce, integrate, impart such information to the benefit of a client - drawing on knowledge (from experience, from reading, from networking with other LTs) much like a doctor does to help a patient (?). Inferring a fair amount of autonomy when collaborating with a client ...

Key processes?

• Collaboration (which requires huge amounts of time to build goodwill and trust)
• Specialist expertise (understanding of current developments / issues in elearning; strategies to help uncover and address them)
• Rhetorical skills (to influence development and decision making by others)
  

autonomy + lack of authority + initiator of change

Key weakness? Perception of LTs by those they seek to serve

Credibility in the eyes of academics. "If (LTs) cannot establish their credentials with hte academics, then it is unlikely that fruitful dialogue will follow, since the collaborator will see them as a service provider rather than an expert."

Activity 6.1 - eLearning as a profession

Sources

Higher Education Academy Professional Standards Consultation (n.d.) ‘Standards framework for teaching and supporting student learning in HE’, [online] Available from: http://www.alt.ac.uk/HEA_professional_standards_consultation_20051012.html (Accessed 16 November 2008).

ALT, (n.d.) ‘SECOND CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSAL TO FORM
A LIFELONG LEARNING SECTOR SKILLS COUNCIL - Questionnaire’, [online] Available from: http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/questionnaire_lluk_ALT.pdf (Accessed 16 November 2008).

What are the specifications for education and training couses aimed at elearning professionals?

Very difficult to find any definitions on this .. all of them seem to come out of the UK though by taking more time to mine the job descriptions for learning technologists in the US this might become easier to address.

From
Higher Education Academy Professional Standards Consultation
An elearning professional is someone who ...

• makes appropriate / judicious use of technology to realize learning outcomes
• has an indepth understanding of learning theory and its application to online learning design
• makes efforts to work with others to enhance and inform each other's practice, knowledge and experience
  

From Anonymous, (n.d.) ‘SECOND CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSAL TO FORM A LIFELONG LEARNING SECTOR SKILLS COUNCIL - Questionnaire’

An elearning professional is someone who ..

• systematically applies a body of knowledge to the design, implementation and evaluation of learning resources
• uses principles of good learning theory, good instructional design and change management to support learning and provide learning resources
• is grounded in the use of technologies and their capabilities to support learning

Compare these specifications with your own education and training.

My own formal and informal education is a mix of visual arts training, museum management, adult education, english as a foreign language training and teaching and my current studies in the MA with the Open U. It's a very eclectic mix but I've also noticed that all of these educational / subject domains have been greatly affected by information technology. I have had to learn learning theory on at least three separate ocassions and maybe more - each from a different perspective (i.e. general, adult and online). Most of my own learning about effective use of technology has been informed by earlier courses in the Open U program. Much of the learning theory has been informed via reflection and integration into my own teaching practice, much of the appropriate selection of technology in education comes from direct experience and reflection on it. In almost all cases, the Open U program has served to more formally recognize my experience and efforts.

My formal qualifications .. constant theme?

Education. in environments that seem to promote or encourage innovation / dealing with change / promoting creativity .. and to do so under fairly close scrutiny by others (i.e. visual arts - public art displays, cultural sector - leveraging scarce time and money resources, adult education - targeted needs, efl - multi mode teaching leveraging scarce time and money resources to realize learning outcomes for students).

Compare this with the education and training of the H808 course team

I recognized that the team placed a certain amount of emphasis on experience with computer mediated communications and learning, the need to be current and connected with a community of practice, and the need to make one's work transparent (open to scrutiny and input from peers). I sense I've had two of the three drilled into me by work demands. The middle point is one that I grew to value while working in the cultural sector - the importance of networking with others to inform one's practice.

Other repeated themes? The need for ethics, standards to support one's work. The importance of striving for quality. The need to be part of a community of practice to constantly inform one's practice in a field whose context seems to be constantly changing.These sorts of values, curiously enough, were emparted in me via my work in alternative education while working in the cultural sector - where public scrutiny and validation were very important to ensuring "buy in".

Reflections - Activity 5.3 group work

From my vantage point, we have struggled to realize this task as a group.
Possible causes, we may have indirectly imposed a limitation on our selves by choosing to start and carry on discussions / exchanges via the FCC board. Curiously, a comfort level with using this, despite having had some exposure to the affordances of wikis and blogs; having them modelled to us in prior weeks. We overlooked choosing how to tackle the problem as a group;working out roles; breaking the task down into small tasks; not review and examine our strengths as members of the group; not coming on board at the same time .... all of it indicating to me that we did not reflect deeply enough on the most appropriate tool nor how to facilitate our task.. and thus undermined our own success or at least slowed it down dramatically.

My contribution to this? A dreadfully late move into 5.3 after spending too much time on 5.2. I felt a need to assert a role as a "Co-ordinator" / "Team

I'm in agreement with anything at this point that gives us some more structure .. such that it facilitates more collaboration. We have a lot of interesting and well developed ideas here but I find the current arrangement highly fragmented and difficult to follow (ie. not one or two but many discussion threads). I would really like to encourage that all of this information be put in one common place so that we can collate it, reflect on it - I would like to suggest the wiki that Nigel set up .. but I'm happy to have it anywhere. No ownership issues here, just acting as an elearning practitioner in identifying what in my opinion is the "best choice" of utility to realize the learning that we are being asked to do here ..

NOTE: I've become well aware about how this whole process is a lovely test of our ability to be elearning practitioners - using good practice in realizing this task involves

• understanding the limitations of online communications
• identifying the best of technology to realize learning
  
• identifying and applying the best strategies to overcome or manage limitations
  
• promoting collaboration / buy in amongst us
• realizing something meaningful / purposeful in the process

I'm even wondering if whatever principles we come up with can be tested against our success in realizing this activity. That would certainly point out their relevance.

Refection - Activity 4.1 - creating multimedia components

This Unit got under my skin a bit ... so I let loose on the FCC message board with the following to my group. It started out for me as a pretty simple rant "Multimedia beware" ... then grew into a bit of a reflection piece for me. A confrontation with myself between the academic reasons for using multimedia and the real "fears" or "concerns" for perhaps avoiding them.

_____________

I'm going to go "out on a limb" here and say that I'd like to challenge the use of multimedia. I also want to say that I'm even a bit disappointed by the resources that I've read in Unit 4.1. I say this because I haven't read anything on the appropriate selection of multimedia (perhaps I've missed something on the topic and I'd love to read about it if its there - do tell) From my experience the use of voice and video really only serve a purpose if the affective qualities that they communicate are important to supporting / enhancing the message or are part of the message (ie.. emotion, enthusiasm, body language, visual cues etc.) If these elements are not seen as important..or are not thought of carefully they can even become a distraction from the message or undermine the message. I've seen my share of poorly made TV shows (available on almost 90% of the channels available to us in the UAE) that have only served to reinforce the point.

Now I realize that the opposite can be said about email or text messaging .. and people sometimes go to great lengths to add that emotional quality via "emoticons". I'd argue that email or text messaging works great until there is a need to convey emotion .. to communicate the message with nuances.. or to minimize the risk of an email message sounding too "turse" or "harsh". Then I might consider using audio or video to communicate my message.

This then begs the question. When might I want to use multimedia as part of an eportfolio? Are there situations when I might want to use audio or video? I've been reflecting on this .. and have managed to come up with the following. By "honestly" conveying my message through multimedia.. by "honestly" conveying my message along with all of its non verbal cues .. I may be granting more authenticity to my presentation. I stressed the word "honestly" because I can't help but think that if it isn't done honestly .. then its likely scripted instead .. then the authenticity of the message "goes out the window" - the reader / viewer may not buy it.

Then there's the other side of the issue. Even if I'm trying to be honest and sincere, I know that I'm confronting my own sorted of "performance" anxiety - asking myself all sorts of questions.

• "How did I come across?"
• "Should I repeat this?"
• "I didn't like that part".
• "Let's do it over again".

So while it can seem fun to some.. it can also be work too - creating a slew of anxieties in my quest to realize some sort of "carefully crafted identity".

I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm incredibly conscious of these affective qualities and perhaps how difficult it can be to either confront them (to make the choice to do them), surrender to them (accept the fact that any such performance will not be perfect) or control them (trying to shape the final product through scripting or rehearsing).

Leading me to conclude, how I confront the use of multimedia and when I use it, is always likely to be a display of not only my technical expertise / skill in using them but my level of confidence in confronting how and when I think I can use them effectively.

Reflection - Activity 3.1. My strengths & weaknesses

What have I learned about my strengths and weaknesses?

Weaknesses?
On the whole I'm most vulnerable in a few key areas... researching new developments, issues and academic findings stands out as the most pressing one. When I think about it, I'm more of a "handson" learner .. and thus I tend to avoid it or at the very least only "do" it when something becomes topical enough that it requires learning more about it in formal ways. I'm not one to devote time to do it on a regular basis (and I'm now really curious how others address the same need for it) but the exercise of doing a detailed review of my job description made it pretty obvious that my current strategy won't be enough. I also realized the importance of promoting effective community building - something that I highly value and yet I haven't committed time and resources to learning more on how to effectively realize it in ages and certainly not much in the way of realizing it online.

It's now looking pretty obvious that in addressing these two shortcomings, my game as an Education Technology Specialist is raised .. and it should help feed the other "stronger cards in my hand".

Strengths?
I really wanted to avoid declaring myself an expert of anything. I'm not fond of the term because I don't consider it something that anyone should really be"annointing themselves with. Perhaps with the formal recognition of my peers on the same topic, I would feel more comfortable using the term.. but that hasn't happened anywhere often enough nor with much fanfare for me to do it. I've only learned since being hired how I have a reputation for making and using learning objects effectively. As a result, I managed to convince myself that perhaps I could be bold enough to apply the term "expert" for my effective use of technology / projects in teaching and learning. But only after carefully reviewing it and even still, I'm bound to be brown nosed by someone else out there. My grounds? A now 20 year period of relatively uninterrupted experience with and increased understandng of the use of technology in teaching and learning.

The matter of comparing myself with my peers brought up a number of other interesting problems and unearthed another set of issues. Our rather small department hardly gives me much of anyone to compare myself with and to go outside the University, I'd be hard pressed to know others of our ilke who I could meet to compare notes. Which raises the issue of professional "isolation" and the need to make a conscious effort to overcome this. Thus the only really viable option seems to be online communities. This theme is emerging more and more.

Activity 3.3 Understanding eportfolio software (preview)

I'm speculating before I begin this review that the following features will be most important to me or to my hypothetical students..

1) ease of use
It has to be easy enough to learn. That can be achieved with built in support or readily available JIT tutorials.

2) flexibility yet structure
Dichotomy here, one wants flexibility yet there is a certain amount of structure needed, certainly for an absolute beginner who may need a set of guided questions. But a more experienced user may opt to drop this structure in favour of getting more freedom to design as they see fit.

3) interoperability / portability
If I'm going to invest so much time and energy into something and over an extended period of time.. then I need to feel confident that whatever I'm using will be transferable to another system.

4) support / modelling of benefits
For anyone just starting on this trek to build an eportfolio, their ability to "see" the benefits of an eportfolio and how those benefits can be easily realized is fundamental to realizing "buying in" ... That equates to providing clear models / examples and constantly available support. That support can come in many forms - interaction / collaboration with ones peers, and/or IT support agents.

Reflection - Eureka moment? Reactive vs proactive approaches to my work

Mentally welcoming change(?)
Two days ago, I was having a chat with a colleague who had ventured by my office on a small matter. She was asking how I was adjusting to my new position. I shared the usual comments about adjustment but I also told her how I felt marooned in working almost entirely at my desk researching, preparing learning materials, setting up workshops and creating follow up support utilities (ie. blogs, surveys, tipsheets, and wikis) . Yet I noted a feeling of detachment in working on serving the needs of my colleagues. She suggested that I just take a "walk" around the place and get to meet others. She also pointed out to me that to stay put was only reinforcing the idea of the CTL being unapproachable. It seemed so brutally obvious, so brutally true .. but it hadn't occured to me to get up and explore.

Making change happen (?)
So I decided to pursue the matter and set aside some time yesterday to try it. I really had no idea how it would go. To my surprise it took me over three hours to do what I anticipated might take only one maximum. I figured that it could have gone on longer if it hadn't been for a previously scheduled commitment.

As I went around soliciting questions / answering questions.. I became aware of two things. The obvious first one was how important it was to get out and interact - response from others in seeing me was generally very positive. It also became apparent just how many people really were not aware of the role our small department had in supporting them. The second thing I became aware of came about from responding to the many impromptu querries they came up with.

An Aspect of Professionalism revealled?
In answering these I became aware of the depth of my own understanding of elearning. Aligning learning needs with the affordances presented via various web tools. How I was also going to present a possible tool, strategy, or resource to help meet their needs. It occured to me more afterwards, how I was quickly drawing on my past experience with these resources, with these similar questions, with implementing them.. but as well, the reading that I've had on them to put together what I thought were solid, "professional responses". Professional aspect being .. negating self interest (i.e. suggesting more than one strategy or option to address a need), sharing what I knew and in a way that made the material approachable, and making my focus that of the client's needs, not my own. The whole exercise has made me more aware of how important it is to project that to others .. to build trust and confidence .. if one hopes to help someone make a move towards change.

I'm also looking back on what I was doing before .. I was taking a reactive position to faculty needs - limiting it to responding to email, telephone calls, and the rare face to face visit to the office. What I learned here is the equal need for proactivity, reaching out to solicit needs .. and probably just as important, establishing face to face contact to build a report so people get to know me, trust me, build a relationship of confidence in me. It's now got me reflecting on how this can be realized in an online environment (another point of reflection).

Still more questions. Now sold on the need for proactivity ..

• How can I find a balance between the reactive approach thrust upon me each day and the proactive approach that I now know is so useful and important to my work?
• How can I manage to lessen the reactivity side .. and maximize the proactive?
• Am I raising expectations amongst those I met that I can be counted on to address any of their ICT integration needs or issues in the future?
  
• Can I anticipate a need to somehow manage these expectations? Do I need to worry about managing expectations right now?

Activity 2.1. - reflection on Karen's Post

Books
Moon (2001)
Lister (2007)

Karen's note about relating this to professional practice got me to thinking about my own context. After reading Moon (2001) and then Lister (2007) I think that I've been encouraging reflection from my learners in the IT training that I give. I've recently put together a post workshop.. skills checklist. This checklist is given to my visitors (and those who are "no shows") a day or two after the presentation.. As simple as it sounds, I'm asking people if they can answer a series of "I can" statements .. yes no or unsure .. without anyone being present. I realize now that I'm expecting this to be a reflective exercise where they then can decide on their next move.. and to guide the next move back to us for follow up support. thus the reason for adding on the same sheet a set of contact names, numbers and email addresses from our department . But because I've only just started with the idea, I'm not sure if it works.. I'm also now thinking that each of those I can statements could be linked back to "learning objects" as another option for self study.

Activity 1.4 Drivers Template - Reflections on the process

Making Assumptions about my colleagues

I realized how I was immediately forced to make assumptions about my colleagues largely because I had very very little information about them .. what their abilities are, their experiences are, their attitudes towards ICT and elearning are. This was in the context of being asked to work with them online to realize a common task (which I wasn't quite sure if I understood the same way they did) and then to do so under time constraints (access to communication tools, differing time zones, differing work / domestic routines) . Problem is further compounded by the absence of immediate feedback that one would typically have access to when working in groups and making decisions in a face to face situation.

Importance of Introductions

As a result, the introductions posted earlier actually took on more importance for me. I went back to them to try to get a glimpse into who my colleagues were and how much they might know about ICT in general or specifically in this case, wikis.

Making Decisions

Extremely difficult to do .. impossible to arrive at consensus (at least on this occasion). Decisions on what to do, in what time frame, what communications tools to use, very little structure or framework in place to realistically arrive at a decision... etc. etc.
All were being made .. but I was very conscious of the need to make such decisions in such a way that they would hopefully realize buy in by my colleagues .

Assuming a leadership role

In the absence of any movement on the task, at least by a point when I expected something to have been initiated, I found myself in an odd position. I felt the need to lead on the task (i.e. setting up a wiki) . Even more odd was to be asserting not one decision as it turned out but a series of decisions without any sort of consensus .. yet time was moving on. It also made me conscious of the need (perhaps even a feeling of guilt) to share my rationale for making such a decision with my colleagues .. on the belief that to do so.. supported "buy in" by them .. to not do so projected a certain "arrogance" which isn't who I think I am. Certainly whatever I did choose to do .. needed to be done with what I now look back on as a set of guiding ethics - fairness, inclusion and respect for my cohorts - hopefully common to them and appreciated by them. This led to the set up of a thread on the wiki entitled "A confessional - why Wetpaint for a wiki?"

Awareness of the need to support

Once the series of decisions was made (i.e. setting up a wiki but not on the Open U system).. I found myself assuming more responsibility for it.. a need to set up support. Even the decision to use Wetpaint was founded on the belief that it would do a better job of facilitating collaboration and discussion amongst colleagues then the Open U wiki. That meant posting links to the wiki on the FC system ..posting a rationale for a possible next move, etc. Expecting a possible challenge from Anne Bradbury. Looking for and carefully observing input from my colleagues Peter and Lisa to see if I was on the right path. Producing new pages. Posting notes on the "utility" to be found on the Wetpaint wiki.

Still a sense that this could be improved upon..

Perhaps by reading the reflections of other members of my cohort .. I'll learn more about the effectiveness of this process and how it could be improved. I have realized for awhile now .. likely through my experience over the years .. the value of "feedback loops" and the need to incorporate them into any decisions on online efforts if I want to ensure their success. The number, type, frequency and immediacy of those responses by my colleagues served as valuable feedback on my decision making in the past.. and I expect that will continue into the future of this task.