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