I think it's always risky to try and prescribe or specify value sets, as
the results are liable to be limited in time and in context. But I
would suggest that LT be seen as an aspect of that large set of
activities which include teaching, authoring, and educational admin,
which we might label 'facilitating learning' or just 'pedagogy'. LT
should take its values and theory (its 'metavalues'?) from that wider
context rather than develop a distinctive set.
So any pedagogically valid and clear foundation should be OK, and
clearly different ones are at work. My feeling is that what tends to
underpin good practice in learning technology, at present, is real
groundedness in the application, being aware of how the applications are
actually being used and feeding this back into the (re) design. My
inclination as to what makes a good LT practitioner is that he/she will
be aware of and responsive to individual learning styles and approaches;
and will have a certain imaginativeness or creativity. Which clearly
includes the openness to think outside existing structures and types of
provision.
But that just reflects my preferred pedagogical stance, and I wouldn't
want to exclude work informed by an instructive/didactic approach from
the LT banner. We should not try to formalise one standpoint into some
kind of prescribed value set, especially with LT practice still
developing and changing fast.
Tony Delahunty.
_____________________________________________
Tony Delahunty
E-Learning Development Co-ordinator
College of North West London
020 8208 5460
[log in to unmask]
P - B503
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Oliver [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 December 2003 11:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: New year's discussion on values
Dear all,
You might be aware that ALT's currently funding some work to create an
accreditation scheme for learning technologists
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/epd/alt-accreditation/). Last year, I posted some
links to the list that led to the creation of this draft job
description:
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uczamao/practice/LTjob2.htm
We're using this as part of the project work, you'll be pleased to hear.
One thing that came up when this description was being drafted was the
matter of values. As part of the project I want to try and find out what
makes a GOOD learning technologist, as opposed to just a competent one.
What is it that you value in your work, or in the work of peers? What
qualities do you aspire to? If someone's going to get a certificate to
say
they're a learning technologist, what qualities do you think should be
visible in their work?
Related to all this, are there any existing value schemes that you can
think of that would do the job, or do we need a distinctive set for
this?
As with the previous discussion, I'll be archiving messages sent in
response to this for use (anonymised) in the project. If you don't want
your message to be included in this process just say.
Best wishes, and happy new year,
Martin
---------------------
Dr. Martin Oliver,
Education and Professional Development,
University College London,
1-19 Torrington Place,
London,
WC1E 7HJ
Phone: +44 (0)20 7679 1905 (x. 41905)
Fax: +44 (0)20 7679 1715
Email: [log in to unmask]
MA Learning Technology Research: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/epd/ltr/
ALT-J: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09687769.asp
|