Jack & Jill of all trades (@reedyreedles)

Posted on by

Peter Reed (@reedyreedles) has made some important and thought provoking posts recently. This is a kind of reply / addition / reflection / enhancement of those posts from my own perspective. Let the games begin … but first it’d help if you had read Pete’s posts:

Yes.

That’s the short answer. I’m not sure there is even a question there, but I like what Pete has said, I agree with him on both posts. Learning Technologists (LTs) do need to be a Jack (or Jill) of all trades, a master of none (or nearly none). 

We need a confidence in our ability and in those we work with, but we also need nurturing and mentoring in order to understand not only our own capabilities, but that of the people and tools we work with and the possibilities we don’t yet know.

Pete says the “learning technologist tend to be a central figure in many developments” and that when he works with course teams or developing materials and curricula he’s “… the one who is linking in with the different departments, encouraging involvement from library colleagues or media development specialists.” It is this understanding of the meta-environment and wider impact our work has that enables a smooth transition between tools, between individuals, between learning and assessment, between collaboration and progress, etc.

We, the LTs, are often the last to be invited to projects yet we have to handle someone else’s delays and work all hours to make them up so the deadline is met.  We are often overlooked during planning and then brought in (at the last minute, or even later) to help solve something we could have prevented in the first place. We are often blamed for technology failing (no, we’re not the IT department) yet have very little power to fix it. We are quite literally the last to know about important changes to product lifecycle or update cycles yet somehow have to fit the downtime around everything else we’re doing. We are not omnipresent yet need to know about so much (not just technology, but application and implication, as well as implementation and impact of the tool as well as institutional policy or strategy). We spend so many hours emailing and ‘inside’ the VLE (or whatever we have available) but we are not tied to our desks – we spend a lot of time visiting you at your desk, working on training and support packages, delivering training or support, liaising with other departments to minimise risk and downtime, liaising with vendors or other stakeholders to ensure tools and techniques fit the business need of the institution.

We are, in short, very busy behind the scenes making sure ‘it’ works – I always remember someone saying “be like a swan … graceful and poised above the water, and paddling like crazy beneath!” That’s us … graceful and poised in plain view, and paddling like crazy in private to keep up or swim against the flow.

Yet, through all this negativity we are usually the most positive and enthusiastic people when it comes to change, to new guidelines or policy, to all sorts of problems. We understand our place in the organisations and institutions we work, even if those we work with / for (academics, administrators, etc.) might not. We are willing to try something new, we are enthusiastic and engaged in whatever it is you ask of us … provided we’re given warning and invited to the ‘party’ sooner rather than later.

As Sarah Horrigan wrote (and I use this quote A LOT!):

“… if you come across a really good learning technologist – talk to them. They’ll fire you up so that you’ll believe you could do anything with your teaching!”

Thanks Pete for the continuing discussion around ‘what is a Learning Technologist’. I’m looking forward to the next chapter in the collaboration … everyone, feel free to join in!

Image source: JD Hancock (CC BY 2.0)