AH SO NE! i have been 'misplaced' in the Group Pages. Now i see that i belong more to 'Industry' than 'Tertiary' ('Academia'). Although our institutions are classified within the tertiary education category, our focus tends to be very industry-oriented.
This is getting clearer and clearer, especially after the video conferencing session that we had with G., S., et al, on one side (in Australia) and with our in-house Instructional Design (ID) program participants on our side (in Singapore) yesterday morning.
There was a certain unexpressed angst in the air. The Australian team knew that they have put together a great ID program, but somehow participation level in the online program was quite low, especially in the online forum. We the Singaporean team knew that we have made available to our academic staff one of the best programs (if not the best) in Australia and we have tried our best to be good co-facilitators -- but the question remained.
Our academic staff participants knew that they wanted to learn. But somehow they couldn't bring themselves to plough through the excellent papers and then post their insights or comments in the forum. They cannot yet see how the theory or insights gleened from the papers would help them design good online learning courses in practice. And they cannot understand why they were not taught ID in a jiffy.
This evening, after a virtual chat with B. and M., it gets even clearer. It's a problem of 'Industry' vs. 'Academia' -- 'practice' vs. 'theory'. It's through no conscious fault of any party. Yes, good 'practice' flows from sound 'theory'. However, like the proverbial East and West, 'practice' and 'theory' are still having difficulties trying to 'meet' -- even with much vaunted constructivist approaches.
More about this later. Gotta run for Bible study group now.
(imported from Blogger.com, see 'Industry' vs. 'Academia' II)