Learning from the early adopters: the Digital Practitioner Framework

Liz BennettUniversity of Huddersfield

ALT2012@lizbennett1

e.bennett@hud.ac.uk

Learning from the early adopters: developing the

Digital PractitionerDr Liz Bennett University of Huddersfield

StructureStructure5

mins

• Digital Practitioner Framework, DPF• And its origins

3 mins

• Models of staff development

20 mins

• Activity applying DPF to your staff development practices

10 mins

• Institutional context• Activity

10 mins

• Summary

Methodology

• Phenomenological• Small scale (n=16) lecturers• Across the university – post 1992• Semi structured interviews• Focus on their experience of innovating

– Pedagogy, challenges, roles/identity, technology, strategies.• Thematic analysis;

– Emotions, identity, radical nature of web 2, drivers for design using web 2.0, skills/practices and their development.

Study Design

The early adopters

http://glam.co.uk/2011/04/2011s-top-ten-family-destinations/go-ape/

The early adopters

Early adopters (Rogers 1983)

Digital practitioner from (Ecclesfield et al 2012)

• confident in their use of TEL,

• a self-managed approach to adoption,

• a willingness to experiment • a willingness to invest time

in exploring the tools and how they might be applied to teaching and learning practice

attributes

practices

skills

access

Digital Practitioner Framework (part of)

Based on Sharpe and Beetham (2010)’s Digital Literacies Framework

Digital Practitioner Framework

I am confident in my attitude to TEL;willing to experiment with technology and how it can be used in

teaching and learning; able to balance risks of change with its potential;convinced by the radical potential of technology to enhance and

transform learning;willing to invest time in exploring and evaluating TEL.I design learning activities to suit my students’ needs using TEL as

appropriate.I facilitate learning using appropriate technological tools.I explore the capabilities of technology.I behave ethically in contexts where the digital media is blurring

boundaries.I evaluate my practices. I reflect on innovations in my practice.I experiment with tools in my practice.

I can:use the appropriate privacy settings for my needs;evaluate the affordances of TEL tools to suit my needs;manage the blurring of boundaries between private and work time.

I have access to:networked devices and applications.media devices.people who can support me in using technology.a network of people with ideas for using technology.

attributes

practices

skills

access

Digital Practitioner Framework

• How do we move the focus from the tools and skills to practices?

• How do we cultivate application in situated practice?

• How do we support risk taking?• How does the institution allow for radical form that

are not constrained by the institution’s barriers?• How does the institution value attributes of the

digital practitioner?

Some questions

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59939034@N02/

Developing as Digital Practitioners

mimicry trying to ape what others have done

ventriloquism, adopting a new set of strategies, repertoires and resources without necessarily buying in to them

vicarious or developing practices through unintended exposure to others’ practices

modelling, applying a theoretical approach to your own teaching practice.

NOT Staff development Courses

In what ways does your institution practically or implicitly supports lecturers’ development in terms of;

– Access level– Skills level– Practices level– Attributes level.

Activity 10 mins

• 18 recommendations identified• Adapted from Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich

(2010).

Table of recommendations

(McNay,1995, p.105)

McNay universities as organisations

• Deconstructing into DPF levels helps in designing and locating activities;

• Aim to foster attributes level in staff;• Don’t focus time on skills.

Some conclusions

ReferencesBennett, E. (2012). Learning from the Early Adopters: Web 2.0 tools, pedagogic practices and the development of the digital practitioner. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield. Available on line at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/15997/.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.

McNay, I. (1995). From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise; The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The Changing University? (pp. 105–115). Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation (3rd ed.). London: Free Press.

Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H. (2010). Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning: towards creative appropriation. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham & S. de Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for the digital age: how learners shape their experiences (pp. 85 - 99). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.

References

Questions?

Dr Liz BennettE: e.bennett@hud.ac.ukTwitter: @Liz Bennett1