Wednesday, 26 September 2012
A further step . . .
This entry is an addition to the postings I have made throughout the year. It is a place where I take a stand and say, enough! Some will understand this entry, others won't. Learning is an odd thing. I'm far from sure how it works. I can only speak through the lens of my own mindset. I have recognized for some time now the sharp contours of my own lucidity. If you can imagine: I am adrift in a small wooden dinghy on the open sea. It is very choppy. There are dark clouds overhead. I am on my own. For some reason I bend over the side of the boat and fearlessly put my head under the water, and can immediately see, in minute detail, the ocean floor far below. I have been assisted by reading the work of scholars who have insight into those things that assist or prevent clarity of thought and purpose. I know this because it is my reality. There are others who know this is so. I am balanced on the sharp edge of certainty and not wanting to believe what is very clear in my mind's eye. These 'others', they feel it is their duty to take an active role in making my balancing act more 'comfortable'. They have made assumptions about what is and is not good for me. They feel safe to make these observations under cover of technological devices. They are anonymous and powerful: some have the backing of institutions people pay to access. I feel exposed and vulnerable. This is a painful time for me. To the 'friends' and 'others' who regard my need for autonomy as unworthy, I would say your comfortable assumptions are misplaced. The thing I cling to in the midst of this storm is my sense of self worth. It has been my close companion through everything that has brought me to this time and place. To those who blithely act on impulse to destroy that which they simply don't comprehend, I say: it is too late. I am convinced of who I am already; there is no shame in behaviour effected through hypnosis or suggestion. Be on your way. You are unwelcome here.
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Digital technologies and adult learners
Ways in which digital
technologies are employed by adults
Adults approach education with a wealth of previous
experience and insights. Learning ‘constructively’
with the aid of Web 2.0 tools, enables them to make meaning of their past and
give direction to their future. The collaborative nature of constructivism, encapsulates
problem solving and critical thinking in digital communities. Teachers trained
in e-Learning pedagogy understand the dynamic nature of collaboration and when adults
master Web 2 tools, their contribution learning communities can be transformative.
The choice of Web 2.0 tools includes Skype, chat rooms,
wikis, audio and video podcasts . Through a survey in America more than half of
the adults (equivalent to 70 million) interviewed want more education. Web 2.0 tools have enabled adult learners to access
university programs when distance or social factors were a preventative factor.
The nature of interactive technologies allow adults to acquire a voice and the
natural spinoffs from this is generational, changing the lifestyles also of
their children.
In my last blog I referred to distance learning of a writing
group in South Carolina. These
communities-of-practice (in this case a group of adult teachers) transformed
their teaching for the benefit of their students. Technological artifacts enabled teachers to
learn strategies relevant to a new pedagogy (e-pedagogy) which is tailored to
the changing needs of students.
Technological artifacts are used widely in the workplace to
improve literacy levels of employees who need to upskill in the vocabulary of
specific domains which differ depending on the job or organization. Many companies provide digital professional
development to improve employees performance and make their job less
stressful. Engaging in online
instruction can also make a positive difference to people’s jobs (the passion
for teaching was reignited for the members of the Bluebonnet Writing Project (Hirtle & S, 2010) mentioned in my last
blog). Higher remuneration can also be a
positive spin-off when adults volunteer to be upskilled with the aid of
technological presentations.
Savin-Baden discusses the importance of dialogue in learning.
The authors emphasize the robust nature of the cut and thrust of (academic) debate.
However, dialogical spaces online are viewed cautiously by those who consider this
style of communication may be ‘modified, stored’ and used later on. (Savin-Baden,
2008). Participants are mindful of these factors which may prevent t
them from speaking spontaneously.
Mindful of the different style of pedagogy now required, Canole
(Conole, 2010) and a team of academics
have constructed a digital platform which invites and designs Web 2.0 resources
for teachers and students. This amounts to a global storehouse of experience
and strategies tailored to the needs of technologically savvy professionals.
Community hubs throughout New Zealand employ technological
devices for young adults to acquire literacy and numeracy skills to lessen the
digital divide in the hope that, providing access to digital tools will improve
their opportunities for employment. (Various,
2011) Adults who re-engage with education often bring with them a set of
disappointments and failure from their first encounter. Digital technologies enable them to engage in
self-paced learning where they have time to reflect and fit new knowledge into
their existing basis of meaning. Because learning is dynamic, current
foundations of experience and knowledge are under continual change and review. Access by adults of Web 2.0 technologies have
the power to build new futures characterized by hope.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
When virtual communities 'click'
Hirtle, J., & S, S. (2010). When Virtual
Communities Click: Transforming teacher practice, transforming teachers. In H.
Yang (Ed.), Handbook of research on
practices and outcomes in e-learning: issues and trends
When virtual
communities 'click'
Communities-of-Practice as learning environments, offer
teachers insight and support.
Community-centred-learning has transformative effects on teachers’ value
systems and professional practice. When
Web 2.0 technologies are used in conjunction with online communities the conditions
are ripe for significant change.
This article investigates the professional and personal
impact that evolves as participants in digital communities-of-practice acquire
‘a voice’. As Web 2.0 tools are implemented, these groups
form more than a website; they evolve into close-knit communities who share common
values and a sense of commitment. Participants in digital communities develop not
only skills and knowledge but transformative attitudes and a sense of
identity.
My interest in exploring the dynamics of digital groups is
ignited when I read about the capability Web 2.0 tools have to push the
boundaries of change. Two headline
grabbing examples illustrate the point: the 2009 Presidential campaign of
Barrack Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring’.
The online communities that supported both these events changed the
direction of global politics. In each case, virtual communities-of-practice
were pivotal to the outcome(s). In order
to capitalize on the benefits of online communities, teachers need to be trained in the use of Web 2.0 technology.
In education, free access to digital platforms invite open
membership. Participants converse and
contribute alongside world authorities on any given topic. The environment is non-hierarchical. This
shift (I nearly said ‘gift’, which it is) from Web to Web 2.0 technologies refines
the process of decision-making and grants access to global storehouses of experience
and discourse, the doors of which are open 24/7.
My quest is to understand the deep seated elements of the process; those
forces that emerge in online communities which drive people’s commitment and
daring.
Sergiovanni identifies
‘moral connections’ as one such element. He argues that ‘the element of
morality can not exist solely within the individual; that it must find its
place in relationship to others. When it does, conditions are set for
transformation’ (Sergiovanni, 1996). Constructivist principles form the basis of
such groups; the non-linear structure means leadership is shared . The fabric from
which virtual communities-of-practice are cut, is dyed in the ability to
transform. The authors assert that rich intersections of diversity emerge in these groups, and when these factors are supported by the use of Web
2.0 technologies, holistic cultures of learning and empowerment are formed
and participants ‘find their voice’.
Much of the qualitative data for this article came from
Peery’s investigation into the Bluebonnet Writing Project in South Carolina. (Peery, 2004). Fox posits three significant outcomes of the
community in his findings.
Through interviews three important outcomes emerged: [teachers were able to] ‘engage in social contexts
with help to redefine their identity; have flow experiences which magnifies
their passion for teaching, and find
voice’ (Fox, 2000).
The teacher participants in the Bluebonnet Writing Project came from an area of 9289
square miles which covered 16 school regions. After two years the group decided to disband because the participants found it difficult and time-consuming
to attend face-to-face meetings. To
avoid closure, an online community was formed. The teachers
regularly took part in online discussions and planning sessions and at the time of writing, they could look back
on two and a half years of telementoring each other in their virtual village.
The teachers used Web 2.0 technologies to gain access to research by others,
ask for advice, access resources.
The participants’ feedback supported the effectiveness of
the Web 2.0 tools used (blogs, telementoring, discussion forums).
Transformative experiences resulted as teachers regained a sense of meaning in the project.
The results of the research into the Bluebonnet Writing Project supports the notion
that the essence of virtual communities is the quality of the relationships, commitment, and common values, and the implicit support and encouragement of those who live and
operate within that ambit.
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Challenges for Teacher Education for Web 2.0 Technologies
Challenges for the designers of Web 2.0 developmental programmes
Round one in the world of the Web, cast users
as observers to whatever was written or
illustrated on a particular web page. Web
2.0 technologies go a step further. (Hayman
2007) found in (Coutinho, 2010) ‘defines
Web 2.0 tools as a “cluster of web-based technologies services with a social
collaboration and sharing component, where the community as a whole contributes,
takes control, votes and ranks contents and contributions” (Coutinho, 2010).
Web 2.0 technologies include Facebook, Twitter, blogs, wikis and
more. The list is expanding. The reality is, however, there is a sizeable gap
between the potential (of these technological tools) and the actual implementation
of them in education thus far.
I have been exploring the question
of technological development programmes for teachers of e-Learning. This is a
central issue for the effective implementation of Web 2.0 technologies in
education. My recent reading has been
focused on finding out about initiatives being launched that address this matter. If the potential of Web 2.0 technologies is
going to be realized in education it is apparent that teachers will need
professional development tailored to accommodate this new style of
learning.
Pedagogy for technology is now a
well defined field of study (Conole, 2010).
The style of teaching with technologies differs from traditional models in important
ways: students, adopting the
constructivist approach, are self-directed, they making meaning from their
experience into their own way of thinking and learning. Students can and do design their own forms of
inquiry, create their own meanings and innovate in collaboration with others. In order to adapt to their changing role,
teachers need learn a new style of pedagogy.
Unlike the traditional linear teaching
approach, teaching technologies is non-linear and key to developing skills in this area is a
reflective component. A Reflective Cycle
was of central importance to the success of the Christchurch ICT Cluster programme (Walker,
2002) where teachers from a select group of three schools in the city participated
in a three-year developmental programme that would assist them in the
incorporation of technologies into their classrooms. The teachers needed time to monitor the patterns
of change and reflect on their experiences in order to make their own
connections.
Pedagogical practices that reflect
on theories and practice were considered to be pivotal in the adoption and
implementation of effective pedagogical development for e-Learning instructors
at the Western Dakota Technical Institute and the School of Education,
University of South Dakota (Bailey & Card, 2009). Implicit in observations
of these instructors was the time needed to reflect and discuss outcomes and
experiences of teaching online practices.
The Open University in the UK has
launched a digital programme (‘Cloudworks’ )designed to promote the use of Web
2.0 tools in education. The programme is
called the Open University Learning Design Initiative (http://ouldi.open.ac.uk)
which focuses on the design of teacher resources and strategies to help
teachers, students, education specialists and others, to (collectively)
establish and maintain a digital platform to inform and share knowledge and
experience which will enhance the effective use of Web 2.0 technologies in
education. (http://ouldi.ac.uk).
It is supported by the Hewlett-funded
Olnet initiatives (http://olnet.org). The approach of the group is to investigate
the ‘development of innovative learning activities and open educational resources’ for teachers of Web 2.0 technologies. (Conole et.al) This is a digital version of
the ‘organizations/institutions I envisaged in an earlier blog dedicated
specifically for the training of teachers using technologies. The collaborative nature of ‘Cloudworks’ is a
micro version of the constructivist approach to learning in classrooms. The programme was launched in 2009 and
continues to grow.
One of the challenges facing educational
policy makers is the design of developmental programmes used to introduce a new
pedagogy for teachers of e-Learning. The drive to close the gap between the potential
and real use of Web 2.0 technologies in education is ongoing.
Friday, 13 April 2012
A personal assessment thus far
Self assessment and approaches to
learning
In this self assessment I will attempt to summarize my
personal experience of online learning thus far.
Teachers’ deeply held beliefs of the nature of teaching and
learning have recently undergone dramatic change. The beliefs do not necessarily have to be formulated
as a conscious set of philosophical ideas but simply implicit in teaching
practices to conform with their view of the nature of learning and teaching (Ernest, 1989).
The heightened acceleration of technological innovations in
and out of the classroom has irrevocably changed the nature of education. The response to these changes demands a dramatic
shift in the role and beliefs of teachers and the nature of learning for students.
I will deal with the change for students first. The Constructivist model of learning involves
the active participation of students in the creation of their own knowledge based
on their own experiences. Through
discourse and collaborative problem solving strategies students create meaning
about the world they live in (Hein, 1991).
In my experience this model of learning is the most appropriate to accommodate successful learning affordances (Wijeekumar, Meyer, Wagoner, & Ferguson, 2006).
But in order for this to happen teachers need to focus anew upon
the meaning of education. Their considered
reflection upon the nature of teaching, and the manner in which students learn,
equip them to foster active learning environments. (Ernest et.al). Teachers vary in their level of effectiveness
according to the depth of subject knowledge, combined with their beliefs about
the nature of teaching and learning (their belief systems). Teachers need to
formulate in their minds the basis of their philosophy of teaching and learning
in order to achieve outcome objectives.
Technological Determinism has many detractors: Brent considers ‘technology shapes the
learner’ (Brent, 2007); Chandler states
that ‘when we interact with media we can and are acted upon’ (Chandler,
1996); and ‘a Marxist class analysis, views technology as an instrument
of dominance by the advantaged class over others. (Kanuka, 2004); Postman maintains that ‘embedded in every tool is
an ideological bias, a predisposition to construct the world as one thing
rather than another’ (Postman, 1993) (quoted
in Kanuka et. al). Implicit in all of these views is the notion that learning
is controlled by something ‘outside’, the opposite to a holistic,
contextualized view where knowledge is inherent in learners and through the inquiry
process is ‘discovered’. As a teaching
philosophy, I subscribe to the positive version of Technological
Determinism.
I agree that technology is not neutral and that it does have
enormous power to alter our world view. In my view a constructivist approach to
learning, with its discourse and synthesis of ideas, tempers the variables of
‘control’, or the prospect of being
‘shaped’ as the ‘futurists’ predict. The
inter-relationships formed within a student-lead learning environment, have a
powerful sway over the way learning takes place and the nature of knowledge acquired.
The holistic principles of constructivism democratize the nature of knowledge by
discourse and collaboration. In this way the abject landscape of a mechanized society
as predicted in E M Forster’s ‘The
Machine Stops’ (1909) cannot take hold.(Forster,
1909)
My personal view e-learning in my present course is that the
mix of collaborative online dialogue and intellectual relationships define the
nature and quality of the learning process.
Teachers employ strategies to promote learner-context interaction and
provide dialogue space within which learners are encouraged to ask questions
and share their perspectives. Garrison and Shale acknowledge the impact of
technology and emphasize that ‘all forms of education – including that
delivered at a distance – as essentially interactions between content, students
and teachers’. (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison,
& Archer, 2001). This view underlines my personal experience of the
effectiveness of online courses.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Why a teaching-philosophy is important for e-Learning instructors
The importance of a
philosophy-of-teaching in the training of e-Learning instructors
Kanuka (Kanuka, 2004) asserts
that ‘philosophy inspires our activities and gives direction to our practices’.
She adds that when we know our own teaching philosophy, we make coherent
choices about what technologies we use and why.
Equipped with this understanding, teachers design courses embedded with the
values and perspectives they want students to acquire.
Draper (Draper, 1993) asserts
that ‘our philosophy determines how we perceive and deal with our preferred
teaching methods – which includes how (or if) we choose and use e-learning
technologies’.
It is apparent that in order to accommodate the nature of
e-Learning, teachers have to acquire a new style of pedagogy. (Means and Olson, 1994 In ) (Walker, 2002)
As I said in a previous blog, in terms of variety of
technological artifacts now available and the speed and shear amount of accessible
information, there is no going back. The
question now is: how can we withstand the speed and variety of change that
threatens to engulf us. Back to
philosophy-of-teaching. Kanuka states
that ‘knowing our personal philosophy helps us to understand why we act and
think the way we do about using e-learning technologies. It
also allows us to understand the impact and result of our ‘technological
choices’. (pg 93)
This question is particularly important for teachers of
e-Learning. The shift is monumental if we are to get it right. My argument is that although new pedagogies
need to be adopted by teachers of e-Learning, over-arching this
philosophies-in-practice need to be grounded and transparent.
One of the key tenets of Walker’s vision is a significant
change in pedagogical style. No teacher in a classroom that uses computers today
is unaware of the shift in the role of both teacher and students. While
teachers move to the position of ‘facilitator/guide, the role of the student has
taken on more direct responsibility; now empowered as creators and researchers
with the world at their fingertips.
An important component of the relationship of the teaching-philosophy/technology/pedagogy
continuum is concerned with the quality of the teacher/student relationship. Students are enthusiastic and motivated when
they comprehend the basis of a teacher’s philosophy-of-practice.
In the context of my own teaching philosophy , I believe technology
is not neutral. I subscribe to the gestalt
view that when students interact with media, ‘certain elements of the learning
process are brought to the foreground while others are moved to the
background’. (Kanuka p.94) Technology has the caliber of power to alter
mindsets; this is why it is important for teachers of e-learning to be open in
terms of their philosophy-of-practice so that they can foster trust and
intellectual transparency within the teacher/student relationship. In order to achieve this, special training
for teachers of e-Learning is urgently required giving them time to reflect on
the consequences of their technological choices.
I subscribe (in part) to Technological determinism. I look
on this philosophy in a positive light. I
believe there is a strong link between the (philosophy-of -teaching) values of
an instructor and positive social change.
When students are aware of their teacher’s technological philosophy,
they can understand the principles embedded in the design of their courses
which promotes social justice.
Technology is non-neutral, but it will only overtake us if the
reasons we technological apparatus is amoral.
These goes to the centre of the argument for urgent and appropriate
training be undertaken by e-learning teachers.
The Christchurch Cluster Group designed a three-year study to include a ‘reflective’
cycle’ component to allow teachers to meet and discuss their experiences when
using technology in the class and the consequences thereof.
However, negative technological determinists argue that distance-delivered
e-learning courses will ‘deprofessionalize the academy’. (pg 99) This is a pessimistic and narrow view. The content of distance courses are no less
academically rigorous. The quality of communication
is not compromised. Academic scholars
maintain dialogue and intellectual relationships with distance students via
technological apparatus’ designed for that very purpose.
To balance the argument it could be stated that distance
e-learning enables people whose lives did not previously allow for enrolment in
university programmes, new opportunities to embark on higher learning. On a political front, distance learning could
be recognized as allowing equality for a bigger slice of society. Also, a positive view cannot ignore that when
a higher percentage of the population have access to higher education, the caliber
of its citizenry is a good thing.
Kanuka (p. 99) reminds us that technological appliances ‘facilitate
the development of argument formation capabilities’ – the speed of
technological progress enables ‘realistic’ dialogue to take place in rooms at
the opposite sides of the globe. The
detractors’ arguments become weaker when writers point out that distance
learning allows for reflection; there is time to compose answers, innovative ideas
emerge just as easily online as in the classroom.
With an instrument as powerful as technology surely its dissemination
is inevitable. Similar parallels can be drawn from Gutenberg’s invention of
mechanical print. ‘This had a major role
to play in the Renaissance, Reformation and the spread of learning to the
masses’. The impact of printing innovation
had similar consequences to technology in education has today.
As I said before, the
floodgates are open. The change implicit
in the concept of ‘progress’ has to have value-laden components inbuilt. This is why urgent, quality training for
teachers of e-learning is critical.
The pessimistic view of the Technological determinists ignore
the benefits of learning for students otherwise unable to embark on university courses
of study. They take no account of the values embedded in
such programmes. Their pessimistic views are stymied by Kanuka’s assertion that
they (‘the futurists’) have ‘an inaccurate view of the power of social context
and its ability to impact education.’
Back to the point just made about teachers’ philosophy-in-practice: when
students learn in an open and transparent learning context: ‘there is a dynamic
mutual shaping between the social, technology, and users’ environments. (p.98).
This view underpins the need for learning environments to be
inquiry-based, student-led and collaborative.
So how does this come about? Walker, (et.el) reflecting on the
Christchurch ICT Cluster project, suggests that the reason why technology has
failed largely to reach its potential as a tool for reform, ‘has to do with how
they [computers] were introduced to teachers’. (p.115) ‘To accommodate all these changes, teachers
need a framework to support their professional learning as well as time to
readjust many aspects of their classroom practices’. Walker adds that the challenge to convert
teaching practice from a traditional style in exchange for an empowered
student-lead environment is a huge challenge.
The purpose of the article by Walker was to share the
findings of a three year professional learning system (PLS) in which teachers
from 4 schools in Christchurch underwent intensive training in e-Learning and,
importantly, constructed a reflective cycle within that framework in which
teachers met to discuss their experiences and findings of their personal switch
to introducing technology into their teaching practice.
Walker posits that in
order to achieve the above, ‘educational administrators, have to move beyond
promoting the
traditional one-shot workshop model of disseminating knowledge or presentations
by
experts if educational change is to be
enhanced by technology.’
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)