I have worked for local government for well over 25 years using various data bases, programs, customer information systems, interfaces and dashboards. This was a gradual progression, because of the central goverment’s initiatives with the Digital Strategy as proclaimed by the Cabinet Office (CO) Gov.uk (2012). During my employment I supported the local community and society with welfare and housing issues. I found the skills I had acquired were transferable to educational systems. Therefore, my perspective is that if these skills are transferable one way there must be a possibility that the converse of ed tech is also transferable to employment.
I have used my skills and knowledge, acquired during the growth of technology, to engage positively with all forms of technology from mobile phones, tablets and personal computers. This has supported me to build Moodle courses and use other web 2.0 tools effectively. Whilst ed tech skills appear transferable I am aware that this will not apply in every sector where ed tech may not be used so frequently due to the context of learners’ employment (Kirkwood 2014). My role in administration lent itself to the use of many computer systems, platforms, data bases and tools, but for a chef de partie or a hair technician these skills are not as prevalent. Even though, as ‘digital natives’ (Kirkwood 2014 ) young people may use web 2.0 as a social activity ie Facebook, Twitter, Whats App and Snap Chat, this may not transfer to education and work (Vance 2012).
Furthermore, as a functional skills tutor for an apprenticeship company myself and the learners used a bespoke VLE Fuse Universal, a virtual classroom, called Electa Live , Skype and face to face sessions (all of which I had training for). This was intended to ‘enhance’ learning’, but was more ed tech ‘determinism’ as explained by Kirkwood (2014) . I found that engagement on the VLE and the virtual classrooms was very limited (learners had no training). However, the learners were very willing to Whats App or call me and email me work (all of which was recorded and evidenced on their session plans), again more of a social aspect not that they did not wish to engage (Vance 2012). The sessions that they were most comfortable and productive were face to face, which given time frames, cost, my quantity of learners and quality issues was not often.
Therefore, although my competencies and capabilities in using web 2.0, the VLE and ed tech were sufficient the learners were unable to engage to make full use of the vast materials at their disposal. Thus, as Kirkwood (2014) explains this did not ‘enhance’ their learning, but was ed tech ‘determinism’, due to the efficiency drives of the training company and the key performance indicators (KPI), which was basically due to the marketisation of education and the learner/student as consumer, as remaked by Furedi (2011).
References
Furedi, F., (2011), Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer, Chp 1. Ed. Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., &Nixon, E., The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. Oxon. Routleged. Free Uni Stuff
Gov.uk (2012) Government Digital Strategy. [Online] Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296336/Government_Digital_Stratetegy_-_November_2012.pdf Accessed 27-1-19
Kirkwood, A., (2014). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education: blended and distance education needs ‘joined-up thinking’rather than technological determinism.Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 29 (3), 206-221
Vance, L. K., (2012)J. Do students want web 2.0? An Investigation into student Instructional preferences. J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 47(4) 481-493,