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.