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.

Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 152-155.

Conole, G. (2010). Facilitating new forms of discourse for learning and teaching: harnessing the power of Web 2.0 practices. Open learning: the Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(2), 141-151.

Coutinho, C. P. (2010). Challenges for teacher education in the learning society: Case studies of promising practice. In H. H. Yang (Ed.), Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning: issues and trends: Information Science Reference.

Walker, R. (2002). A reflective cycle for teacher learnin: the Christchurch ICT Cluster project. In G. F. Hoban (Ed.), Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach (pp. 115-142). Buckingham Philadelphia: Open University Press.

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.

Brent, D. (2007). Teaching as performance in the electronic classroom. Retrieved from http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/cpm/cpmfolder/papers/Doug_Brent.htm

Chandler, D. (1996, February, 1996). Engagement with media: Shaping and being shaped Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine. Retrieved from http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/determ.html

Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: the state of the art. Lewes: the Falmer Press.

Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. Retrieved from http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

Hein, G. E. (1991, 15-22 October). The Museum and the needs of people. presented at the meeting of the CECA (International Committee of Museum Educators) Conference, Jerusalem, Israel.

Kanuka, H. (2004). Understanding e-Learning Technologies-in-Practice through Philosophies-in-Practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of learning online (pp. 91-111). Edmondon: AU Press.

Postman, N. (Ed.) (1993). Technopoly the surrender of culture to technology. 222.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in computer conferencing transcripts. Journal of Asynchronous learnng networks.

Wijeekumar, K. J., Meyer, B. J., Wagoner, D., & Ferguson, L. (2006). Technology affordances: the 'real story' in research with K-12 and undergraduate learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 191-209. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00528.x

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.’

 Draper, J. A. (1993). Valuing what we do as practitioners. In T. D. Barer-Stein, J A (Ed.), The craft of teaching adults (pp. 55-67). Ontario: Culture Conepts.

Kanuka, H. (2004). Understanding e-Learning Technologies-in-Practice through Philosophies-in-Practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of learning online (pp. 91-111). Edmondon: AU Press.

Walker, R. (2002). A reflective cycle for teacher learnin: the Christchurch ICT Cluster project. In G. F. Hoban (Ed.), Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach (pp. 115-142). Buckingham Philadelphia: Open University Press.