Depending on where you work you might use the title Learning Technologist, Education Technologist, Instructional Designer, or something else, but essentially these roles are the same.

• See the ‘related posts’ section below for links to the previous 4 posts in this series.

Here are a few excerpts from job descriptions for these roles that I found with a quick Google search, see for yourself:

• “Provides pedagogic advice, guidance, encouragement and support on the use of technology to staff involved in teaching. Such processes involves mutual learning, and frequently contrast with the clear division of labour that characterises Instructional Design.”
  Source: JISC – Recommendations for an accreditation scheme for learning technologists v. 4.6 (Consultation document 19/03/04)
• “Promoting and the appropriate pedagogical use of e-learning through resources,
  communication and assessment tools.”
  Source: Bournemouth University – Job Description & Person Specification (PDF 55.70kb)
• “Develop and institute logistical, instructional, and pedagogical policies for the creation and delivery of online courses.”
  Source: UTD – Job Description

While reading this post last night - Learning Technology Trends To Watch In 2012 – I found the section on “Expanded Instructional Designer’s Role” quite interesting, not least as the expanded role sounded an awful lot like the work I am already engaged in?

“Captured in Clive Shepherd’s book, The New Learning Architect, the idea that an instructional designer has one only one function – course creation – seems outdated. Although many will continue to develop courses, instructional designers will need to think in broad terms about how to close learning gaps. This means understanding the strategies that underlie diverse possibilities for learning, both formal and informal, traditional and nontraditional, online and print and face-to-face and virtual.”

Many of the people I converse with on Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Facebook, at work, at conferences, etc, are also of this opinion: that it is more than just the final result that the LT (Learning Technologist) is interested in, that the LT can be a vital part of the whole process in getting the learning materials researched, set up, assessed, etc. Convincing others of this is not always easy.

“For example, instructional designers are managing communities of practice, curating content, facilitating online discussion groups, organizing events and supporting of social media for learning. Instructional designers are often the proponents of innovation and the persuaders who convince upper management that interaction and collaboration will make for a smarter organization. As more instructional designers and educators see themselves as learning architects, the world will become a smarter place.”

Wow, this is me, am I now a Learning Architect?

Do you have a view or comment on this, or any other aspect of the role or industry you work in? If so then please leave a comment and open the discussion.

Related posts:

1. What is a Learning Technologist (part 2)?
2. What is a Learning Technologist? (part 3)
3. Learning Tools: what do you use?

Whilst waiting for my iOS5 update to proceed I did quite a bit of reading, and one item that caught my eye was this post called “At Last – Recognition for Blog-based Portfolios” by Jim Shimabukuru, which reported on an academic paper written by a group of 6 US professors – “bPortfolios: Blogging for Reflective Practice“.

The abstract for the academic paper is:

“Web 2.0 technology, such as blogging, allows for locally developed, cost effective, and holistic alternative portfolio assessment systems. By enhancing critical reflection and fostering social interaction, blogging portfolios are seen as an integral learning tool for all students enrolled in a university program.”

Quite what the difference is, for the student’s final portfolio, between the blog and portfolio edition is still not clear yet, but it is obviously an alternative solution, and one that ought to be considered.

Many will know that I’ve long been a champion of electronic-based portfolio systems, and have tested and used a few of them (PebblePad, Mahara, etc). While the process of getting them used more widely than as part of a reflective writing element in a single Unit/Course is still on-going, I am now thinking that we have the basis here, with blog-based portfolios,

The highlights of using a blogging system (like WordPress) as the portfolio system are:

• WordPress.com hosted blogs are free.
• Students can use the portfolios across their entire study for numerous on-campus and online courses experiences.
• The portfolios promote and support ‘social interaction’, (i.e., ‘Students share their learning reflections in an open format’).
• Students can ‘continue to maintain their site upon completion of the program as their individual accounts are not registered on a university server’.
• The portfolio is ‘stored’ in the cloud (e.g. WordPress.com) if an Institutional system is not implemented.
• The portfolios are ‘highly cost effective’ and sustainable: “The university can focus its time and efforts on improving instruction and student support for the bPortfolio rather than allocate funds and personnel to web-hosting, software upgrades, and software support, etc. in the bPortfolio project”.

Jim closes his piece by saying that the use …

“… of WordPress and Blogger for teacher and student publications and portfolios is a highly sustainable, cost-effective, and educative practice. It expands the students’ e-learning environment beyond the walls of the college to include the worldwide web. Sloan-C, and especially SPU, are to be congratulated for taking this bold step toward re-empowering teachers for the 21^st century classroom.”

While his use of a blogging system was not sanctioned or supported officially (something he is glad of, in fear of opposition to his implementation) he recognises that there are implications regarding student support, both pedagogically and from the technical viewpoint. Both Blogger and WordPress have extensive resources online for just about every eventuality, this is not always the ‘cleanest’ method of support.

So, the big question … are ePortfolios on their way out before they’ve really gained traction, or is the subect of bPortfolios just going to dilute the discussion about the engagement of students, faculty, and employers? I welcome your comments.

No related posts.

The Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) is a system/tool that sparks a fair bit of controversy when you mention it in any education setting. Whether you like it or not, use it or not, you will no doubt be involved in one, to some degree.

Last month I posted the poll to this blog about what name or label you have for your ‘student-centred’ learning environment (I know, that in itself is ripe for a huge discussion about whether a VLE or CMS could validly be called ‘student centred’ or even a ‘learning environment’), and here are the results:

I am not surprised with these results as the VLE is deemed the most popular one I observe in discussions. Whether it is the right classification for the tool is also up for discussion but the results show the term VLE as the one we use.

However, Steve Wheeler got me thinking (again!) when he tweeted during last months eAssessment Scotland Conference:

The institutional VLE is where content goes to die #eas11

August 26, 2011 1:18 pm via EchofonReplyRetweetFavorite

@timbuckteeth

Steve Wheeler

Now, while Steve is somewhat known for sparking ‘heated’ discussion he has a point here, even if it’s one we don’t want to like it. I have constant battles when I see PDF and PowerPoint files being uploaded to the VLE, with no explanation on what they are or how/why the students should use them, and to then see them called ‘eLearning’. Arghh! That is barely even eDelivery and certainly not eLearning. In this day and age there is no reason why we can’t develop decent learning packages for the students, or arrange for appropriate explanation of what they are expected to do with the materials we provide for them … right?

However, from Steve’s post above I then saw the following tweet from Matt Northam, a colleague at Bournemouth University:

Why is it that students will happily talk about course stuff and whatnot on Facebook/twitter/etc but not in designated VLE's(?) #mes11

September 7, 2011 12:14 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@mattnortham

matt northam ™

Indeed, why do students not interact wit us or each other in the Institutional VLE? I’ve searched around on this topic and haven’t really found any definitive research or evidence that I’m happy with. I retweeted Matt’s post and received some welcome replies, which I’m sure Matt is also appreciative of too. The following are a selection of the replies, so I apologise if your’s is not included and commented on – you might have something similar to another reply?

• Tim Dalton: “Feeling that the VLE is part of the assessment process so I filter what I write there?”

Indeed I have heard similar feelings from students at BU, but if introduced and explained properly then any form of required interaction (group based, personal, journal, informal/formal, etc) should negate these feelings? The VLE is not, to my knowledge, intended or even used to replicate or replace existing communication channels, but rather to enhance a particular section or activity. For me what you post to the Institutional VLE is always considered confidential.

• Ben Bull: “Because your VLE isn’t as good and isn’t as socially relevant to them?”

Certainly the VLE is not as ‘socially’ relevant to the, but it’s not supposed to be, is it? As far as the statement that it isn’t “as good” really depends again on how you use it, and which one you have. I would say that from my experience most VLE systems are not developing as fast as the world of social media/networks.

• Jon Scott: “VLEs outdated. Need to improve + integrate with workable pedagogy which encourages online communication and collab.”  and “hard to achieve- need to show a requirement for it. how do you demo requirement without a system to try pedagogy on?” (2 tweets)

Jon echo’s my sentiment from Ben’s tweet, VLE systems are slowly catching up to online behaviour in social networks, but unless they make radical changes they will always be playing catch-up. More importantly is that there needs to be a reason to have the VLE, and any changes within it, that must be relevant to the pedagogic need for the technology, and how we use it.

• Doug Belshaw: “Discussions on SoMe instead of VLE because of ownership of space? Identity?”

I’ve blogged about this before too, but the ‘safety’ of activity within the Institutional VLE is something we can and should advocate. When we or the students take the work/assignment/conversation/etc out of this environment we lose control, they lose security, and we and them are open to external influences and activity/exposure that, for me, we ought to prevent. While I’m sure someone will argue that we should not have control over the conversation, I am merely stating here that we should be ‘controlling’ the technical infrastructure to provide a safe online environment for course-based student activity.

• Natalie Lafferty: “Usability, interaction design, ownership maybe why students prefer talking about course stuff on FB rather than VLE”

Interesting point here: while I talk about (our) ‘ownership’ of the Institution system the idea that the students want their own ownership of the system they use is not one I had thought of until now. However, their data, details, communication, etc, in external systems are at the mercy of those T&Cs .. and we all know how unreliable and changeable Facebook has been in the past about that. The question of ‘ownership’ is one we ought to take seriously.

• Sue Beckingham: “SoMe v VLE – interface more intuitive & visually pleasing + can easy communicate with chosen connections.”

If we can get the issues surrounding data security sorted then a ‘system’ or set of tools that utilises the best of both worlds could be on the cards, yes?

• Shirley Pickford: “A student said its because the VLE doesn’t look/feel like FB/twitter/etc. Design tweaks coming up when I have time.”

I’d like to know more about this as the question for me here is whether it is purely the design of the two systems or do they mean the practical aspects of the way the two different systems work? I can see potential in this approach, certainly in finding out whether the students actually understand what each system can offer.

• David Walker: “Perhaps because fear of being monitored? Or less fear of being shown up among immediate friends (Fb) rather than whole class?”

I’m not sure how other people use their VLE but for ‘my’ online students the conversation is about being monitored so we can gauge their progress and direct them to additional resources in case they start to lag behind, or even worse, get the wrong idea? Key here is that the conversation we expect/hope/plan for IS centred around their study, so this is obviously aimed at them using the VLE.

Is this question about the use of the VLE more about the basic fundamentals of each system rather than their merits? If we had a VLE that mimicked the buttons and function of the social network tool would the  students be more inclined to use it, or will they still use the external system because of the issue or ownership or the link to assessment?

This tweet from Carl Morris simply says ”Ownership, familiarity and habit?. it simply covers the main topics. Is it more about familiarity and habit or is it about how WE introduce the VLE to them, explain what it is we will do and actually do it, as well as explain what we expect from them?

I saw a report recently (unfortunately I can’t find the  link now!) that highlighted what the students liked and disliked about their VLE. The aspects the students were positive about were orientated towards what the VLE did and how it did it, but the negativity surrounding the VLE was centred around how it was used. Therefore we are the problem, not the VLE?

This says a lot. Is the question about the success or failure of the VLE actually our fault, even though we pin it on the system or the students for not using it properly?

I don’t see the VLE as a place for conversation, I see it as somewhere the students ‘should’ be interacting with for the purpose of their studies. Yes, use Facebook and other websites to chat about housing, drinking, sport, etc but for your course studies they will benefit from using the VLE as we, the educators and facilitators, are present and able to join in when they ask us. If the students take everything outside of the space we provide then we can’t be expected to join them, or even know where they are. Can they?

I think this whole exercise has produced more questions for me than provided possible answers. What do you think? Do you have any research to add here that will help us all form a better understanding of what/where/how we need to develop our use and uses of the VLE? Please leave your comments below.

No related posts.

Below is a list of conferences I have presented at (while I can keep up to date with them).

Please feel free to contact me if you would like me to be involved in your Conference.

No related posts.

Welcome, and thank you for scanning the QR Code that I created specifically for the eAssessment Scotland Conference, August 2011!

On this page you will find some links to me, my presentation, and my poster. I will be updating this page with links, notes, tweets, and pictures from the Conference when I return, but for now this is just to allow you to view my slides and poster in detail.

My presentation, as I blogged about when the abstract was approved, covers the subject of what we call Time-constrained Papers: “24-hour Papers: the Open-Book Alternative to Exams for Online Assessment“, the slides are reproduced below on SlideShare, please click the image to view:

If you are going to quote or cite this presentation in any work please use the following details (in the style of Harvard Referencing):

Hopkins, D., 2011. 24-hour Papers: the Open-Book Alternative to Exams for Online Assessment. In: eAssessment Scotland ‘Keeping it Real’, 26 August 2011, University of Dundee. Available from: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/18202/.

Alongside this presentation I also am co-presenting a poster entitled “eAssessment: Who’s Involved”, also reproduced on SlideShare below:

If you are going to quote or cite this poster in any work please use the following details (in the style of Harvard Referencing):

Hopkins, D. and Hutchings, L, 2011. eAssessment: Who’s Involved? In: eAssessment Scotland ‘Keeping it Real’, 26 August 2011, University of Dundee. Available from: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/18422/.

I generated two QR Codeswhich I am displaying in two different locations at the Conference; one at the end of my presentation, and the other stuck to the back of my business card – both as research to see who scans the code to access this page. Whilst they both link to the shortened URL that is displayed beneath the code, by separating them out I could see which was scanned and from what device.

If you have any queries about the poster or the presentation please contact me via the comments field below or on Twitter.

Update: August 31st, 2011
Here are some links and various resources I collected from the conference, as well as some most excellent tweeting:

• Steve Wheeler keynote:  Assessment in the Digital Age: Fair Measures?
• Becka Colley keynote: Please Sir, May I have some more exams?

From Steve’s keynote I posted the following photos to TwitPic:

The Lord’s Prayer .. in 160 characters

Triadic Assessment

The irony of education: the sign points the way to ‘learning’, but obviously doesn’t mean you ‘will’ learn

During the Conference the QR Codes (see above) were scanned, and here are a few stats and details on their success:

• QR Code in the presentation was scanned 6 times, 5 via iPhone and once manually types into Internet Explorer, all on the same day as the presentation (see, the shortened URL that is part of the code image does work – for this one person they may not have been able to get the code to scan from the photo they took during the presentation so typed the URL in when they returned home).
• QR Code on my business card was scanned twice, once on the Thursday and another on the following Tuesday. Unfortunately my attempt to stick a box of business cards to my poster did not work and they fell off to be quickly cleared up and binned by the cleaning staff at the event. The lesson learned here is to use sticky tape AND good quality pins to anchor the box to the poster wall!

During (before AND after) the Conference I tweeted a little of what was going on, but the surprising thing is I recevied two instances of my tweet being flagged as a ‘top tweet‘ on the day it was posted. The first of these was:

Getting the taxi to work today #eas11 http://t.co/VBUeMsy

August 25, 2011 6:49 am via InstagramReplyRetweetFavorite

@hopkinsdavid

David Hopkins

and

#eas11 Here're my slides for “24-hour Papers: the Open-Book Alternative to Exams for Online Assessment“ presentation: http://t.co/Y9s0wN9

August 28, 2011 8:51 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@hopkinsdavid

David Hopkins

Related posts:

1. 2011: BU Enhancing Education

Please find below the list of publications I have worked on as a Learning Technologist at Bournemouth University. The full list is available from the ePrints section of the Bournemouth University, according to the Harvard style of referencing.

Hopkins, D., Bobeva, M. and Ramsden, A., 2012. Using QR Codes in Higher Education. In: Using QR Codes in Higher Education, 31 January 2012, EBC, Bournemouth University, England. (Published)

Hopkins, D., 2011. 24-hour Papers: the Open-Book Alternative to Exams for Online Assessment. In: eAssessment Scotland ‘Keeping it Real’, 26 August 2011, University of Dundee. (Published)

Hopkins, D. and Hutchings, L., 2011. eAssessment: Who’s Involved. In: eAssessment Scotland ‘Keeping it Real’, 26 August 2011, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.

Hopkins, D. and Bobeva, M., 2011. QR Codes in Education: The Business School Experience. In: Bournemouth University Education Enhancement Conference 2011, 4 May 2011, Bournemouth University, Poole, England.

Hopkins, D., Wincott, M. and Hutchings, L., 2011. Building educational confidence and affinity through Online Induction Activities. In: Bournemouth University Education Enhancement Conference 2011, 4 May 2011, Bournemouth University, Poole, England.

Sadd, D. and Hopkins, D., 2011. Footprints in the Void: do students understand their ‘digital footprint’ in relation to their employability? In: Bournemouth University Education Enhancement Conference 2011, 4 May 2011, Bournemouth University, Poole, England.

Hopkins, D., Bobeva, M. and Roushan, G., 2009. The ‘I’ in Induction, 7th e-learning@greenwich conference. In: 7th e-learning@greenwich conference: Making It Personal, 8 July 2009, University of Greenwich, London.

Hopkins, D, Mallia, M and Abbasirad, K, 2008. Student-led Online Debate, using Work Groups (myBU). In: 2008 Education Conference, Bournemouth University.

Related posts:

1. 2011: BU Enhancing Education
2. 2011: eAssessment Scotland

Today I confirmed the abstract of my presentation to the eAssessment Scotland Conference, hosted by the  University of Dundee, on August 25/26, 2011 – www.e-assessment-scotland.org.

Here is what I will be delivering to the distinguished delegates:

Title: “24-hour Papers: the Open-Book Alternative to Exams for Online Assessment”

Abstract: “Common unit specifications covering delivery of subject-identical units across different courses, often with different delivery methods, are increasingly being implemented. The inclusion of a ‘coursework’ element of assessment allows for flexibility. This is different when an ‘exam’ is required; with students on a fully-online course, unable to attend an exam centre, due to differences in time zones and/or locations, the concept of an open-book exam is used. The exam paper is released to students through our VLE (Blackboard) at a time that is agreed and broadcast to students in advance. Submission of their work is required within a 24-hour window via an upload of their files to the VLE (using either the standard submission tool or Turnitin).”

“This presentation will draw upon the Bournemouth University’s substantial experience of presenting ‘Time-Constrained Papers’ to students studying at a distance and will consider the issues surrounding this approach. Particular consideration will be given to the importance of question design to limit scope for academic dishonesty and the University’s plans to modify this approach in the forthcoming academic year.”

I will be following Dr. Sharon Flynn on Friday morning (Parallel session A), where I will also talk about the use of Turnitin with distant learners within the scope of Time-Constrained Papers. I hope you can join us there.

Related posts:

1. Reading: "Developing a better understanding of technology-based pedagogy"
2. Reading: "Learning from the Learners' Experience"
3. Distance Learning / Distance Education

David Hopkins, Learning Technologist

Those of you who follow my blog, or follow me on Twitter (@hopkinsdavid), Academia.edu or LinkedIn, will know I continue to explore the role of Learning Technologists, and the discipline that is learning technology. Below are two links to my previous efforts in defining some of my thoughts:

• What is a Learning Technologist (Aug 2009)
• What is a Learning Technologist (part 2)? (Oct 2010)

In October 2010 I started studying the PG Cert Education Practice at Bournemouth University with a view to gaining valuable insight into the world in which I inhabit, support, and advise. I will post on the first two assignments at some time, but the final assignment is an ePortfolio of work (at the time of writing, June 2011, the marks are not back yet) and supporting evidence over the past year or so that fits the three themes, which are:

1. Self-awareness and Self-evaluation: Evaluating Development Needs
2. Managing Change: Response to Context
3. Evidence-based Practice in Relation to Discipline Needs

It is not possible to replicate the whole ePortfolio here, nor do I want to (yet), but I wanted to share a few sections that reinforce my ‘journey’ as a Learning Technologist. These come from the final section of ‘evidence-based practice in relation to discipline needs’ (and associated references):

“The discipline of Learning Technology is changing and growing as new ideas for existing tools and systems are developed or as new systems are introduced – the advances in mobile computing and geo-location is introducing a new world of ‘tagging’ yourself and your ‘updates’ (Facebook), your ‘tweets’ (Twitter), and your photos (TwitPic, Flickr, Instagram, etc). Being a Learning Technologist also means we are not limited to just playing a supporting role, but we involved in the “broad range of communication, information and related technologies that can be used to support learning, teaching, and assessment” (Browne & Beetham, 2010, p6). This is our discipline and covers all aspects of subject areas from Health Care and Archaeology to Marketing or Computer Systems Designs.”

Browne, T. and Beetham, H. 2010. The positioning of educational technologists in enhancing the student experience. Project Report. Association of Learning Technology and The Higher Education Academy. Available from:http://repository.alt.ac.uk/id/eprint/831. [Accessed May 25, 2011].

“One aspect of my role that I have found invaluable is that I am able to bring my commercial background in web design and Internet technologies, as well as time as an employee and owner/manager of a small business, to the varied subject areas I support in the School; accounting, management, finance, law, contract, marketing, etc. It is this background that has given me the time to develop a professionalism that I pride myself with that has enabled invitations from different teams within the School, and other Schools, to be involved in teaching, research and projects. The concluding statements in the work by Neurmann et all (2002) state that a steady growth in staff development “has typically involved the central provision of short-courses … divorced from the specificities of the everyday academic context” but a “faculty-based [or] departmentally based provision could give promise of enhancing reflective practice, drawing on a recognition of specific cognitive and cultural factors rather than concentrating on generic teaching skills and presentational techniques.” I have found a School (departmentally)-based approach is able to factor a growth of a closer personal relationship with an academic or team and their subject area to be more valuable than a ‘point-and-click’ approach to the introduction of new tools and systems.”

Neumann, R., Parry, S., and Becher, T. 2002 Teaching and Learning in their Disciplinary Contexts: a conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education. 27(4). p405-417. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7362300&site=eds-live&scope=site. [Accessed May 25, 2011].

“Work by Browne & Beetham (2010, p6) highlights the impact technology enhanced learning has as a “major driver for enhancing the student experience”, but they acknowledge that literature is “relatively silent” on the role and impact Learning Technologist’s have on such objectives. Through my own day-to-day experiences I have found myself being invited to be involved in research, projects, presentations, workshops, conferences, etc that I would not normally expect to be asked to; I attribute this to my open and willing attitude and cultural change within the Business School that has improved relationships between myself and framework teams, and the understanding of the role a Learning Technologist. Questions on where a Learning Technologist should be “positioned” is a difficult one, say Browne & Beetham (2010, p13) which received mixed responses when they asked, and one I can see both sides to the argument; are we positioned in the School so we can maximise the relationships and knowledge of the disciplines of those we support, or are we a central resource that are shared among many different subject disciplines and School, but get the benefit of being kept up to date with system changes/updates? In my view there are positives and negatives to both arguments, but a School-based Learning Technologist has the best of the ‘local’ knowledge and the best of the collaborative environment a central position can offer, if working in a collaborative environment. The discipline of learning technology and the individuals who are part of this growing professional ‘group’, according to Peacock et al (2009), can have a valuable influence on all aspects of, for example, eResearch as we can demonstrate the role of support to help researchers “make informed decisions about whether and how to use e-learning tools to conduct qualitative e-research” and that a “more inclusive model of the Learning Technologist’s role in academia could help address the potential polarisation of the profession into researchers and practitioners”.”

Browne, T. and Beetham, H. 2010. The positioning of educational technologists in enhancing the student experience. Project Report. Association of Learning Technology and The Higher Education Academy. Available from:http://repository.alt.ac.uk/id/eprint/831. [Accessed May 25, 2011].

Peacock, S., Robertson, A., Williams, S, and Clausen, M. 2009. The Role of Learning Technologists in Supporting E-Research, ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17(2). pp115-129. Available from: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/09687760903033041 [Accessed May 25, 2011].

I conclude the portfolio saying that:

“the opportunity to reflect on the past year(s) has given me greater insight into my role within the Business School and wider Bournemouth University community, but also how I am able to shape the discipline of learning technology from workshops, research, and conversations I am involved in, and by engaging with like-minded professionals through social networks like Twitter and LinkedIn. From this reflection I am able to concentrate my work and reading with a view to develop my professional practice.”

My journey
I have been on a journey during this PG Cert course,. Not all of it has been pleasant but I have enjoyed it and realised that I don’t like the ‘getting by’ mentality: when I do something I like to do it properly and see it through to the end. The struggle has been finding a balance between work and home life AND being a student again. There were times when one had to be sacrificed, and it was always my studies and assignments that suffered. I am not sorry for this, just disappointed that, at times, I wasn’t able to put the effort and dedication I know I am capable of into my studies.

What next?
Well, I don’t know where I am going to go now, assuming I get the grades to pass (finger’s crossed) but there are many avenues open to me: further studies, CMALT application and accreditation (definitely), etc. One thing is certain: I have started something here I want to see grow and to see where it can take me, my work, and my job/discipline. As they say “watch this space …  !”

Please feel free to leave a comment about the above or about your experience as a Learning Technologist, or your experience of working with us.

Related posts:

1. What is a Learning Technologist (part 2)?
2. What is a Learning Technologist (part 5)?
3. What is a Learning Technologist?

I was just about able to keep up with the recent Learning Without Frontiersconference this week through Twitter and the LiveStream video: many thanks to everyone involved in the organising of this which made this possible.

I have just read Steve Wheeler’s blog post about the presentation given by Lord Puttnam which Steve titled “Disruptive Innovation” – please read it in full on Steve’s blog – http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/. I would draw you to the whole post, as well as this passage;

“Children today need new skills, he [Lord Puttnam] argued – skills that we didn’t need when we were in school. But because the world has changed, we are now needing to think about how different the world will look like when the children of today leave school and start work. His stark warning was that if we in this country don’t get it right, and marry education and technology effectively to equip our young people to be competitive, then the rest of the world – those countries who have been bolder, and have taken the risks – will shed no tears. Imagine a world in which we can devise entirely new ways of assessment, experiencing new things and acquiring new skills he asked. Lord Puttnam’s message was a polar opposite to the earlier, less well received (and I put it mildly) presentation by Government advisor Katherine Birbalsingh, who called for a return to the Victorian values of privately funded schools such as Eton.”

The whole post is a good read and should be enough for those of us in education, whatever our role, to open our eyes to see what is out there … if we’re saying we’re preparing graduates for jobs that don’t yet exist, why are we using teaching strategies based in the past, not present (and certainly not future)? In the competitive market of Higher Education in the UK (about to get even more competitive thanks to the funding cuts?) the Institution that can produce graduates capable of working well in the new workplace then shouldn’t we all be innovating and pushing the boundaries of accepted teaching?

Steve concludes his post by saying that Lord Puttnam’s;

“… final comment was this: Getting education right is the most important priority for all of us. It’s the whole ball of wax. No state education system will be any use, unless it trains and sustains good teachers. Teacher education in a digital age, using the best and latest technologies is a must”

No related posts.

What are the benefits of collaborative learning, for the students? Well, here are my selection from the 40 or so listed on the Global Development Research Centre’s website which I had not considered before;

1. Develops higher level thinking skills

4. Builds self esteem in students

9. Promotes positive race relations

14. Involves students in developing curriculum and class procedures

22. Encourages alternate student assessment techniques

25. Students are taught how to criticize ideas, not people

34. Classroom anxiety is significantly reduced

These are good, but not aspects of collaboration I had considered. The more ‘normal’ (for want of a better word) are, for me;

5. Enhances student satisfaction with the learning experience

6. Promotes a positive attitude toward the subject matter

7. Develops oral communication skills

10. Creates an environment of active, involved, exploratory learning

15. Students explore alternate problem solutions in a safe environment

20. Students develop responsibility for each other

29. Greater ability of students to view situations from others’ perspectives (development of empathy

33. Promotes innovation in teaching and classroom techniques

36. Classroom resembles real life social and employment situations

What would you add to this list (or the original list; link above)?

No related posts.