We heard of number of discussions in Gilbert's talk about the challenges of working and funding both practitioners and academic researchers. Obviously action research by and for practitioners is one model noted by a number of text messages. There is also design based research that usually engages both professional researchers and those active in a specific education context.
A pan Canadian e-learning research agenda, should have a place for both, but also mechanisms to increased the effectiveness of their knowledge development, sharing and 'mobilization'.
Have you suggestions or concerns that we should specifically mention in our agenda related to this necessary, but often challenging partnership?
In following this conference, I see two main issues that have come up:
- Sharing of information
- Access to funding
Partnerships are very important for the synergy. I think it will be one of the policy decision on the master plan. pan Canadian e-learning research can be driven by having a good master plan and it should promote both academics and the people in the industry for the research. On the other hand I like to mention about the concept of “Marketing” also related to this. Though this is not a kind of Profit driven we can use some concepts like “positioning (how we can position pan Canadian e-learning research on customers (general public?) Mind), segmenting….Key areas should be identified and integration of this areas should put as key factors of the priority list.
Nalin, I like those ideas re. positioning and segmenting.
Although they come from another domain of practice, I agree that they are highly relevant when presented from the perspective of gaining influence and targeting audiences for dissemination of research and practice.
d.
Although they come from another domain of practice, I agree that they are highly relevant when presented from the perspective of gaining influence and targeting audiences for dissemination of research and practice.
d.
Even stating that there should be a place for both is an important first step, Terry. It makes the agenda explicit and extends an inclusive arm.
I like it.
d.
I like it.
d.
I am not sure what the distinction between academics and practitioners in Canadian research context as in our context, it's not so evident.
The distinction is based on the institution where one works. Academics work in universities and colleges. Practitioners work is in public and private schools. This is an interesting observation, however, of the situated direction we take our thinking when we want to learn more.
Thank you for the clarification, Karen. I did not realize the issue discussed here was about collaborating higher ed and K-12.
Hi Karen and Terumi,
I'd like to add that practitioners can also include those involved in training from industry and professional organizations. The American Society for Training and Development is an association which deals with workplace trainers and is heavily into elearning - they provide the learningcircuits website (sorry, I do not know a Canadian equivalent).
One organization I have been involved with - the Ontario Management Development Program, deals with management training for industries across Ontario. Around 2000, they started to move their courses online through OntarioLearn and in so doing, increased 'access' but I would venture to say, 'quality of life' for a great many of their adult students.
Since the organization's slant is not to 'research' their elearning activities... if there is something to be gained by their approach, it is most probably lost. I'm sure these types of lost learning opportunities are replayed across the country in many different educational and industrial settings.
I dream of an organization that can pick up on such initiatives... 'unpack' them (like my Master's professor used to say) and share the wealth, across educational, professional, provincial, etc. boundaries.
Sue
I'd like to add that practitioners can also include those involved in training from industry and professional organizations. The American Society for Training and Development is an association which deals with workplace trainers and is heavily into elearning - they provide the learningcircuits website (sorry, I do not know a Canadian equivalent).
One organization I have been involved with - the Ontario Management Development Program, deals with management training for industries across Ontario. Around 2000, they started to move their courses online through OntarioLearn and in so doing, increased 'access' but I would venture to say, 'quality of life' for a great many of their adult students.
Since the organization's slant is not to 'research' their elearning activities... if there is something to be gained by their approach, it is most probably lost. I'm sure these types of lost learning opportunities are replayed across the country in many different educational and industrial settings.
I dream of an organization that can pick up on such initiatives... 'unpack' them (like my Master's professor used to say) and share the wealth, across educational, professional, provincial, etc. boundaries.
Sue
Hi Sue,
Thanks for connecting us with this information as I imagine that "unpacking" these initiatives and learning from them, is part of the research outreach potential and general awareness with which this conference wants to connect.
Jo Ann
Thanks for connecting us with this information as I imagine that "unpacking" these initiatives and learning from them, is part of the research outreach potential and general awareness with which this conference wants to connect.
Jo Ann
Terry:
I agree it is important to include both practitioners and academics in any e-learning research agenda. In the practitioner category I would include all those educators who do not have research as part of their core responsibilities, e.g., most college & institute instructors. Trying to generate research activity in non-research institutions is a huge challenge and is more than just a funding issue. It is a structural problem that has to do with collective agreements, faculty training, incentives, institutional mandate etc. At my institution (BCIT), most faculty were not hired for research expertise and their teaching load is such that conducting research is very difficult. We do need to find a way to engage these practitioners in research because these are the institutions that give priority to teaching and, I would argue, this is where the research would have the most impact.
Mark.
I agree it is important to include both practitioners and academics in any e-learning research agenda. In the practitioner category I would include all those educators who do not have research as part of their core responsibilities, e.g., most college & institute instructors. Trying to generate research activity in non-research institutions is a huge challenge and is more than just a funding issue. It is a structural problem that has to do with collective agreements, faculty training, incentives, institutional mandate etc. At my institution (BCIT), most faculty were not hired for research expertise and their teaching load is such that conducting research is very difficult. We do need to find a way to engage these practitioners in research because these are the institutions that give priority to teaching and, I would argue, this is where the research would have the most impact.
Mark.