I agree with everything that has been said about time, training and
commitment from managers.
From the research we did into how professionals come to use learning
technologies, the phrase 'peer supported experimentation' sticks in my mind.
Yes, people do need time and space (i.e. opportunity) to try things for
themselves, and I like the idea that it is this that should be mandatory,
rather than any specific 'threshold of competence' in e-learning. As Martin
says, different people will develop different sets of skills, and that must
be seen as a strength.
But as well as opportunity there needs to be motivation to engage, and there
need to be resources to draw upon, otherwise we are all inventing e-learning
from the ground up. I think there has been a lot of focus on extrinsic
motivations i.e. rewards, policy mandates etc, but we know from the EFFECTS
project that the strongest motivating factor is personal interest and
commitment, and things that happen from the ground up rather than the top
down.
I think having a community of peers to talk to is incredibly important in
maintaining this kind of commitment on the ground. This is something we have
in the Experts list and in other networks e.g. the FPP champions.
Perhaps this programme is about how we represent and share the good work
that is going on, in a way that allows other people (given the time and
space) to respond and learn from it. And building links across existing
networks, based on real activities and resources. In my experience the
people who are not engaging with e-learning will not suddenly start to
engage because 'proof' of effectiveness is shown to them. What they need are
often small-scale, local examples of things that have worked, and someone
close at hand - who is well-resourced - encouraging them to give it a try.
Perhaps if we can show this approach working on the ground, in real
communities (e.g. via the subject centres in HE, or regional support centres
in FE, or via workshops organised through this programme and its expert
group), we can win a few more of the arguments about time, space and
training provision. I do feel committed to this being a practitioner-based
rather than a managerial programme, and we have had lots of positive
feedback about that.
Helen
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dana" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Recipes or chefs..the significance of CPD
> ">I believe the primary motivator for lecturers to change their practice
> >must remain the perception of benefits to their students learning."
>
> "I'd agree that creating a space for people to learn about the
technology -
> ideally by trying it out and probably making mistakes - is vital. And it's
> not really there right now."
>
> Lecturers perceptions of what will benefit their students is not always
> based on relevant experience. How many lecturers have tried elements of
> e-learning on which to base their judgement that they should not change?
> Trying to raise the standards of 'good' teaching and learning to 'very
good'
> is a significant challenge whether it involves e-learning or not.
>
> Creating space for teachers to try out new strategies is vital. The
> 'mandatory' should in my view be directed at managers to ensure the
> opportunities exist.
>
> Recruitment policies and adverts can be important motivators!
>
> Going back about 10 steps! - teachers tend to be very busy and frequently
> sceptical. Case studies showing that strategies can work are important.
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Oliver" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Recipes or chefs..the significance of CPD
>
>
> >I believe the primary motivator for lecturers to change their practice
> >must remain the perception of benefits to their students learning.
>
> I'd agree - but there's an important corollary here. Ok, you can't promote
> everyone each time they learn a new piece of technology. Fair enough. But
> equally, you shouldn't expect everyone to learn each new piece of
> technology. If you want everyone to engage, then you need to provide
> incentives; if you don't care about the patchiness of uptake, then it's ok
> to leave it to lecturers to decide whether it's relevant given their
> students and approach to teaching. People will develop the portfolio of
ICT
> skills that they need, rather than the ones that policy makers (or
> researchers or...) want.
>
> Whichever of these two options you opt for, though, I'd agree that
creating
> a space for people to learn about the technology - ideally by trying it
out
> and probably making mistakes - is vital. And it's not really there right
> now.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
|