PDP needs analysis grid – Competencies for a Modern Learning Solutions Practitioner

		How do you rate your own abilities to:	Yourself compared with other Practitioners					Comment
			Complete novice	Below average	Average	Above average	Expert
1	Consult	Explain theory supporting Modern Learning Solutions (MLS)				X
2		Maintain wide breadth of Learning Expertise			X
3		Debate, persuade and sell MLS vision to stakeholders				X
4		Outline Relevant Instructional Design Principles			X
5		demonstrate awareness of delivery platforms and uses of				X
6		demonstrate awareness of potential tools and uses of				X
7		demonstrate awareness of process, governance and QA, QC procedures.			X
8		Identify and understand issues in current training				X
9	Manage	Document and record keep			X
10		Develop appropriate governance procedures, QA, QM, Copyright etc.				X
11		Develop cost/benefit and impact analysis		X
12		Manage stakeholder expectations			X
13		Manage personal development capabilities /activities		X				Reflection, PDP and PDR. Eportfolio maintenance.
14	Develop & Implement	Write User Requirements Documents		X
15		Ability to select appropriate Target/s content				X
16		Understand Pro’s and Cons of chosen media				X
17		Analyse Training Material for Improvement			X
18		Assess Impact of Improving Training Material		X
19		Choose Appropriate Methods & Media for Learning			X
20		Develop action plan			X
21	Evaluate	Conduct in action reflection			X
22		Conduct Inval / Exval of delivered products or solutions			X
23		Conduct formal PPE			X

Portfolio Recommendation

An E-Portfolio Recommendation for the Royal Navy.

In order to successfully introduce an E-portfolio system to the Royal Navy it is necessary to understand three key points.  The infrastructure available to RN personnel, the target audience and its various needs,  and most importantly, the raison d’être of the eportfolio from the perspectives of those who should use it. 

The first consideration is one of infrastructure and the limited broadband access available to warships and personnel on operations across the globe.  The eportfolio of choice should be easy to operate, low bandwidth hungry and capable of being cached while still offering the necessary functionality.  

Secondly, the Royal Navy eportfolio requirement, while not yet set, is most likely to be institutionally focused, designed to deliver confidence to line managers and coordinators alike that the individual is capable and competent.  The training and learning planning function must be accessible by both the sailor and the line manager.  Here the line manager and the sailor are of comparable importance in considering the design emphasis of the chosen eportfolio.  The workplace for the sailor is an increasingly complex environment, where the understanding of the political environment is as relevant as the technical.  Sailors and their commanders often have to make complex decisions where the consequences can have significant impact on international affairs.  Therefore the Navy Management Board requires agile and flexible sailors capable of operating correctly in the harsh environment of the sea first time every time.  This requirement could be considered the Operational Requirement.  

The need to learn and reflect on ones performance is central to both the operational and the Long Life Learning agenda.  However careful consideration of how this is achieved will be critical to its enduring success in the L3 arena.  As the Navy continues to transition towards being a 'learning organisation' the ability of a sailor to electronically capture and record their competencies and see their training plan is essential.  That the eportfolio links to and compliments the Joint Personnel Administration system is considered an essential requirement.  This is seen as problematic as JPA is not Bologna Process complaint, which would enable the exchange of e-portfolio relevant data between systems.  The direct download of existing and recognized frameworks and competencies into the sailor’s eportfolio will deliver a critical weight of evidence which should convince them of its value.  Being able to see the output, rather than the eportfolio interface should win many a sceptic over to the value of the process.  That said, the existing naval culture sees sailors only thinking of their second career a year or two before their departure from the service.  This underlines the need for continued promotion of the Life Long Learning agenda within the Royal Navy, of which the eportfolio is tangible evidence.  Using the L3 justification for the eportfolio supplements the argument of the Operational but if it is to be credible, then the ownership and physical location of the eportfolio after a Sailors service is of critical importance.   The veteran sailor must have access to the eportfolio and should be supported in its use after active service. 

The last consideration is that of data security.  The loss or unauthorised access to any MoD data, regardless of security classification results in acute reputational issues for the department.  Any system used must be secure, yet accessible to users.  The use of a Secure Singular Sign In is considered essential.

At present there is no clear market leader in this area but as the Eportfolio will be required to link with the RN’s JPA system which is not Bologna Process compliant a bespoke or heavily modified E-portfolio system is considered necessary. 

2.5 Plus response

A response to a post from John Sumpter. 


John,

Thanks for the Information is Beautiful link. I agree that the these examples are much better at getting information across to the learner and that the RLO-CETL piece was rather staid and boring. That said I had written the piece below prior to your posting. My ready agreement with you was some what at odds with what I had written as a draft below.

I actually found the RLO-CETL piece rather useful in that it provides a framework and a series of questions that can be applied to any given reflective opportunity. The reflective theorist history provided helpful if not essential background and the simple learning styles questionnaire had merit. But it was the simple questioning framework of something happened?, what happened?, so what?, and what next? which appeared the most powerful tool here. The recognition that something had happened and a few questions to follow seem logical and easy to follow for those new to reflective writing. The explicit discussion of why reflect on page 8 was useful to recognize and therefore overcome the habitual element to our thinking. It highlighted the conscious effort required and why it is worth while. Section 9, on what should be written about, appeared rather obvious but in the final analysis if a student takes time to write about something that struck them as important enough to take the time to think about it and reflect then it has learning merit. Whether that merit builds to a course objective is dependent upon the student, learning design and interpretation. Finally, students like to have an example to follow and the one provided on page 10 was sufficiently vague enough in terms of scenario to be applicable, but specific enough to demonstrate the requirements of reflective writing. I feel I have a grasp of 'how' I should write reflectively, but little idea of how that can be translated into a tutor marking scheme where, as my colleagues have already outlined, the output and determination of development is still subjective.

This led me to ask how and /or why my opinions could differ so greatly? The RLO piece is staid and boring but as I had a need for the information and consider myself a motivated learner it delivered just enough, just in time. I guess it raises the issue of student motivation. Where there is little motivation, the full gambit of online learning and the ease of graphical representation should be bought to the fore. In essence is the RLO_CETL bit 'fit for purpose'? For those like myself on H808 probably yes. For students who are new to and not entirely comfortable with reflective techniques, probably not.