Unit 2, Activity 2: Resident-Visitor Typology Map

The following illustrates my use of digital technologies according to White’s (2013) resident-visitor typology. Like others in this cohort, I have made my digital presence relatively small and have purposely made it that way. I recently searched my name on Google – while my Linkedin profile came up, there is another Alison Kendrick with a much larger digital presence that monopolizes the results (and that’s fine with me).

Most of the technologies I’ve categorized as being a resident of are used as part of the MALAT program. While I use those that I’ve listed as personal (Facebook, Instagram) almost daily, I’m only an observer, meaning I have Facebook to see family and friends posts, but I rarely post anything. Similarly with Instagram, I use it to follow bands, professional tennis players and tournaments, and dogs I’ve never met but think are really cute. 

Since I am currently job searching, I have included Indeed and Eluta (job search engines) and Novoresume (a resume builder) under Institutional, as well as Zoom and other video conferencing applications since I use them to conduct most of my interviews. I assume in my next position, these applications would likely remain under Institutional as long as COVID-19 continues to force people to work from home.

References

White, D. (2013, September 13). Just the Mapping [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSK1Iw1XtwQ

Unit 1, Activity 3: Virtual Symposium Critical Academic Reflection

This past week I participated in the 2021 MALAT Virtual Symposium. The symposium is made up of a series of guest speakers, ranging from students, faculty, and professionals, and their experiences with education and technology. A recurring theme in this years’ (and past years) symposium was open and its role in education.

Starting with Amanda Coolidge’s (2021) talk on Open Education, which she described as “being about sharing, collaboration, and breaking down barriers of accessing education and knowledge” (08:01-08:08), I was intrigued to learn that the term “open” was as broad as it is, and includes topics such as open textbooks, open pedagogy, open research, etc., which all culminate under the umbrella term of open practice. I particularly enjoyed the discussion on access and affordability issues and how they can be addressed through open practice. Dave Cormier (2017) furthered the discussion on open in his talk, making the distinction between free and freedom, which I thought was important as it hadn’t occurred to me that free, albeit appealing, may not equal freedom. I also liked how he spoke to the value of both “open as in content and open as in learning” (17:46) because I believe it takes both to be a successful learner. Cormier also used a great metaphor with rhizomes and its implications on open, and learning in general, that will undoubtedly stick with me.

As Coolidge (2021) discussed the work of BCcampus with open education, specifically with open textbooks, I disagreed with her position that the quality of open textbooks “isn’t so much about the course material, its about the way in which you teach it” (22:31). My initial disagreement stemmed from the idea that its possible to have a very charismatic teacher teaching material that isn’t accurate (e.g., teaching students that Germany won World War II). As I watched Elizabeth Childs and Loni Davis’s (2021) talk, I further felt Coolidge’s position was weak due to Child’s comments on how journal articles undergo a rigorous review process before being published. I found myself asking why if journal articles require such scrutiny, why don’t open textbooks? While I recognize there is likely a lengthier explanation about the review process for open textbooks, and Weller (2020) states that “the Open Education Group at Brigham Young University…[has] established an evidence base demonstrating that open textbooks were of high quality and had a positive impact on students” (p. 138-139), I felt that a stronger stance from Coolidge was needed. Despite this disagreement, I’d like to learn more about open textbooks and their review and publishing processes. Weller (2020) states that “…the quality of the physical book is an important aspect for both educators and students. Books are artifacts at which people tend to have an emotional connection” (p. 139), so I’d be curious to learn more on how this is achieved with respect to open textbooks.

While Cindy Harris did not speak specifically about an open topic, her willingness to be open about her life and career journey resonated with me. I hope to connect with her for advice on the instructional design and how to break into the field. As well, the presentations from current MALAT students, from Mark Regan’s work with air traffic controllers and simulator technologies to Sandra Kuiper’s research on Free Learning as an Open Educational Resource Repository, helped shed light on the wide range of research options, which is encouraging as I prepare to choose my exit pathway.

 

References

Childs, E., & Davis, L., (2021, April 14). Critical Reading and Writing at the Graduate Level. [Webinar]. Royal Roads University . http://bit.ly/criticalreadingwritingVS2021

Coolidge, A. (2021, April 12). Open Education: what it is; what it does and its amazing impact! [Webinar]. Royal Roads University . http://bit.ly/CoolidgeVS2021

Cormier, D. (2017, April 18). Intentional messiness of online communities. [Webinar]. Royal Roads University . https://malat-coursesite.royalroads.ca/lrnt521/dave-cormier-virtual-symposium-presentation/

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/books/120290-25-years-of-ed-tech/