Chapter Abstract: EDIN ‘Emerging Issues 2’ by David Jennings & Diane Cashman
This chapter will look at how current Faculty are dealing with the needs of the Net Generation in the realm of Higher Education (HE) and online learning. It will review the impact of societal changes that have taken place in educational technology and discuss a model of generational distinctions in the methodological practices of teaching and learning.
Data from a study of Faculty interaction with ICT and online learning will be presented and analysed in the light of current socio-historical concepts and institutional implementations of educational technology. The primary interest will be the roll played by educational developers and technologists in under writing new methodologies and implementations
The ethos of the paper implies that recently appointed academics are primarily of the Generation X (born 1965 – 1980), these individuals have experienced a surge in technological developments but also a great degree of economic upheaval potentially leaving them with a particularly sceptical outlook upon life in general. Hence the ‘Cynic’ in the title of the paper. In Greek Philosophy these individuals were renowned for flouting social conventions and their confrontational style of engagement. Is there an analogy with current practices in HE?
As time progresses the student population, an ever fluctuating cohort, will be led by members of the Net Gen (born 1981 - 1994) and their successors. It is these who are referred to as the ‘Eclectics’, choosing a means that best suits them from current paradigms and creating their own philosophy to suit. This mirrors the current myriad of social technologies in use on the Internet and how learners are able to multi-task and process multiple streams of information at the same time.
The question arises how can the Cynics broker a means of engagement in a format palatable to the Eclectics? Can the previous generation of academics (the ‘baby boomers’ 1946 - 1964) have any chance at all? Can Faculty adopt and adapt to the new demands of learners, in a timely and pedagogically suitable way? What is the role of educational developers/technologists? How might we begin to develop our curriculum to cater for future learners?
August 07, 2007
July 23, 2007
Musings: Pedagogic alignment
Historically the concept of a University was very much in line with the idea of holistic development of the individual, they were places to experience the freedom of thought, to explore a myriad of disciplines, to be exposed to new ideas and to be able to be in a position to challenge the status quo in open fora with peers and teachers. Many such ideals are still apparent, but perhaps implemented in spirit rather than action. Today we talk of the need to develop ‘soft skills’, we provide extra curricula activities to facilitate this and go as far as to adapt our own modules in light of perceived ‘requirements’. We even offer a plethora of induction sessions; how to use the library, how to use a computer, how to write essays, where to find your research representative etc. The University has changed into a service led environment, offering customers the choice that suits them best, aiding them to attain their desired goals. A subtle but earth shattering change that has perhaps gone un-noticed, who was it that decided the University should become another Wal-Mart, offering everything under one roof to the disregard of smaller institutes. And now not only is bigger better, but alliances are essential for future proofing possible national and international opportunities. What are we suddenly selling and to whom?
European directives and a national plans call for the provision of more HE places, but populations are now declining, careers are ever changing, the insatiable need for education is across the board, we refer to it as life-long learning. In reality first world society is in the cusp of a major upheaval, on the one hand economies are more susceptible to e-commerce (and will continue to be so) offering new careers in areas yet defined, following on from this there is a need for constant re-training. On the other hand has society now reached a level of economic security whereby, individuals may choose to pursue further education, education that is often undertaken, not for a job specific reason, but for the pleasure, for the personal reward. If this scenario is true, than the current state of University behaviour, despite being overtly orientated to a ‘customer led’ theme is grossly out of step.
Re-training for new careers is not within the remit of HE in general, it is not providing a series of ‘how-to’s’ on the latest technologies or newly developed career paths, indeed specific courses may apply a level of this in any given instance, but never would it be considered its definitive learning outcome.
For the individual returning to education as an act of self improvement / reward they are presented with a bizarre scenario of technological asides (VLEs, web logs, e-journals etc), channelled information sessions (independent inductions series), and a programme of choice, where once they could focus on a discipline and acquire the skill sets necessary for knowledge construction, problem solving and information retrieval, now a series of choices (by ‘market design’) offers an eclectic approach to such a task. Although such a choice may seem effective in providing exposure to multiple disciplinary traits, are key skills being overlooked? Do the learners treat such a pic n’ mix as transitory, merely a progressive step in their education? Has the University managed to pull the wool over the consumers eyes and offer up a never ending scenario of for lifelong learning and future fee paying students?
Is this merely a symptom of a reactionary approach to educational technology and the demands of new student cohorts rather than a being able to have a forward-thinking approach?
The tribal approach to education suggests that the university allows for the collection of groupings of individuals with shared interests, passing knowledge to one another within that group and also ‘down the line’ to incoming generations. Does the onset of new communication technologies outstrip this societal need for a gathering, might there be a possibility of such groups being collectively large enough to demand or facilitate their own institutional needs vis a vis a university? (Fuller and So¨derlund, 2002). (see Maffesoli).
European directives and a national plans call for the provision of more HE places, but populations are now declining, careers are ever changing, the insatiable need for education is across the board, we refer to it as life-long learning. In reality first world society is in the cusp of a major upheaval, on the one hand economies are more susceptible to e-commerce (and will continue to be so) offering new careers in areas yet defined, following on from this there is a need for constant re-training. On the other hand has society now reached a level of economic security whereby, individuals may choose to pursue further education, education that is often undertaken, not for a job specific reason, but for the pleasure, for the personal reward. If this scenario is true, than the current state of University behaviour, despite being overtly orientated to a ‘customer led’ theme is grossly out of step.
Re-training for new careers is not within the remit of HE in general, it is not providing a series of ‘how-to’s’ on the latest technologies or newly developed career paths, indeed specific courses may apply a level of this in any given instance, but never would it be considered its definitive learning outcome.
For the individual returning to education as an act of self improvement / reward they are presented with a bizarre scenario of technological asides (VLEs, web logs, e-journals etc), channelled information sessions (independent inductions series), and a programme of choice, where once they could focus on a discipline and acquire the skill sets necessary for knowledge construction, problem solving and information retrieval, now a series of choices (by ‘market design’) offers an eclectic approach to such a task. Although such a choice may seem effective in providing exposure to multiple disciplinary traits, are key skills being overlooked? Do the learners treat such a pic n’ mix as transitory, merely a progressive step in their education? Has the University managed to pull the wool over the consumers eyes and offer up a never ending scenario of for lifelong learning and future fee paying students?
Is this merely a symptom of a reactionary approach to educational technology and the demands of new student cohorts rather than a being able to have a forward-thinking approach?
The tribal approach to education suggests that the university allows for the collection of groupings of individuals with shared interests, passing knowledge to one another within that group and also ‘down the line’ to incoming generations. Does the onset of new communication technologies outstrip this societal need for a gathering, might there be a possibility of such groups being collectively large enough to demand or facilitate their own institutional needs vis a vis a university? (Fuller and So¨derlund, 2002). (see Maffesoli).
Musings: E-learning as an economic entity
Often over sighted as a clear rationale to employ technology is the perceived benefits that accrue once an effective e-learning implementation has taken place, this implies a consequential ‘reduction’ of overheads that in turn should allow for greater investment in infrastructure that in turn will engender accessibility to a wider cohort and thus create a return on investments as the economies of scale model takes hold. This wonderful myth is not only rife but far too frequently used as a justification for expenditure on administrative systems that often over shadow true academic needs. Indeed nothing can be quite further from the truth, the very implementation of any technological solution, by its very nature, requires a commitment in time and development that unless clearly managed falls to the wayside within a 12 month cycle. Industry commitments mean that software and hardware solutions are constantly upgraded within this period, indeed a recent study (XX) showed that the technological life-cycle of a mere PC is expected to be no more than 36-48 months. Any technological strategic plan, by its very nature, needs to be adaptive, evolving with the latest developments and needs of its end users. Add to this melting pot the unenviable diseconomies of scale (as espoused by Gaible with regard to repository initiatives (Gaible, 2004) – such as the diminishing discoverability and retrieval of data and materials, the need for increased maintenance across multiple platforms and one quickly realises that any investment is a long term commitment. Suffice to say it is more sensible and appropriate to treat such an investment in e-learning and technology as part of the fundamental running costs, and not as a nominal project over a finite life-span.
Notes: Phenomenography
Marton and Ramsden 1988 provide a list of phenomenographic implications for the design of learning:
Present the learner worth new ways of seeing
Focus on a few critical issues and show how they relate
Integrate substantive and syntactic structures
Make the learners’ conceptions explicit to them
Highlight the inconsistencies within and the consequences of learners’ conceptions
Create situations where learners’ centre attention on relevant aspects
(after Laurillard 2003:69)
“In any act of learning, students simultaneously engage in three successive phases – acquiring, knowing and applying... From the constitutionalist perspective, we consider students’ prior experiences, perceptions, approaches ad outcomes to be simultaneously present in their awareness.”
Prosser and Trigwell, 1999: 17
(Reigeluth, 2006, Reigeluth, 1995)
Present the learner worth new ways of seeing
Focus on a few critical issues and show how they relate
Integrate substantive and syntactic structures
Make the learners’ conceptions explicit to them
Highlight the inconsistencies within and the consequences of learners’ conceptions
Create situations where learners’ centre attention on relevant aspects
(after Laurillard 2003:69)
“In any act of learning, students simultaneously engage in three successive phases – acquiring, knowing and applying... From the constitutionalist perspective, we consider students’ prior experiences, perceptions, approaches ad outcomes to be simultaneously present in their awareness.”
Prosser and Trigwell, 1999: 17
(Reigeluth, 2006, Reigeluth, 1995)
Notes: Communities of Practice
In discussing the concept of shared cognition one inevitably has to consider the social element, how individuals interact within an environment and with one another. Etienne Wenger (1998) developed the concept of Communities of Practice, in which there are three key elements: the domain, the community and the practice. The key to each of these domains (and indeed the community itself) is the interactions between individuals, their joint purpose and their actual endeavours. Wenger sees this as a means by which to promote collaboration online, more often than not it is mistakenly perceived that a community of practice is a mere website, network or shared concern. All of these may indeed form the constituent parts of a community of practice but they require activities to bring them to fruition e.g. Problem solving, Requests for info, Seeking experience, Reusing assets, Coordination and synergy, Discussing developments, Documentation projects, Visits, Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps.
Wenger refers to a “community of practice seen as a living curriculum…” it is this entity that may form the foundation for collaboration and in turn the structure within which shared cognition occurs on an ongoing basis, promoting both life long learning and continuing professional development. A study by Olivera and Straus (2004) testing the transfer of knowledge in a lab-based cooperative learning scenario indicates that learning occurred primarily around cognitive tasks rather than actual social factors, thus highlighting the need for structure based scenarios or a framework to facilitate collaborative efforts such as may be found Wenger’ Communities.
Thomas (2002) puts forward the proposal that the use of discussion boards may aid in the level of thinking undertaken by students. In particular the attainment of critical thinking and deep cognitive processing. In her paper she explores the idea of measuring the environmental impact of the use of facilitators and collaborative tasks. Cooke and Sheeran (2004) also cite the use of moderators to determine behavioural changes in cognitive relations. Problem-based learning is often chaired and run by the learners themselves, in this online version a facilitator was in place to ensure the process was followed through to fruition and to offer any additional and necessary support factors (such as technical assistance, course guidance and mentoring).
An individual’s construction of knowledge, can be suggested as being a ‘collaboration with oneself’, drawing on experience, practice and implementation to achieve a desired objective e.g. a particular learning goal. This is brought into a group dynamic where such implicit experiences are often made explicit via cognitive conflict (i.e. challenging and exploring concepts co-operatively). Each group member may demonstrate a ‘personal’ interaction with the curriculum elements that is interpreted internally yet shared externally. This interaction offers an increased range of experience demonstrated, explored and shared via the entire group. Van Boxtel et al suggest that a key element in the positive perception of collaboration “...is the notion that social interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge’ (313, 2000). It provides a forum within which individual learners have the opportunity to engage with the process and express their understanding.
Though this may appear elementary, i.e. differing group members applying personal learning styles or social perspectives for instance. What is not as apparent is the effect upon the group dynamic. According to Vygotsky (1978) the internalization of a shared event by an individual may only be revealed at a later date when that individual is confronted by a similar problem/context within which to react. Thus the results of shared cognition may be seen to be internalized/referenced for future interactions. Furthermore the exposure to differing learning styles may actually affect the way in which individuals decide to learn themselves in future - collaboration leading to co-construction of knowledge.
Wenger refers to a “community of practice seen as a living curriculum…” it is this entity that may form the foundation for collaboration and in turn the structure within which shared cognition occurs on an ongoing basis, promoting both life long learning and continuing professional development. A study by Olivera and Straus (2004) testing the transfer of knowledge in a lab-based cooperative learning scenario indicates that learning occurred primarily around cognitive tasks rather than actual social factors, thus highlighting the need for structure based scenarios or a framework to facilitate collaborative efforts such as may be found Wenger’ Communities.
Thomas (2002) puts forward the proposal that the use of discussion boards may aid in the level of thinking undertaken by students. In particular the attainment of critical thinking and deep cognitive processing. In her paper she explores the idea of measuring the environmental impact of the use of facilitators and collaborative tasks. Cooke and Sheeran (2004) also cite the use of moderators to determine behavioural changes in cognitive relations. Problem-based learning is often chaired and run by the learners themselves, in this online version a facilitator was in place to ensure the process was followed through to fruition and to offer any additional and necessary support factors (such as technical assistance, course guidance and mentoring).
An individual’s construction of knowledge, can be suggested as being a ‘collaboration with oneself’, drawing on experience, practice and implementation to achieve a desired objective e.g. a particular learning goal. This is brought into a group dynamic where such implicit experiences are often made explicit via cognitive conflict (i.e. challenging and exploring concepts co-operatively). Each group member may demonstrate a ‘personal’ interaction with the curriculum elements that is interpreted internally yet shared externally. This interaction offers an increased range of experience demonstrated, explored and shared via the entire group. Van Boxtel et al suggest that a key element in the positive perception of collaboration “...is the notion that social interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge’ (313, 2000). It provides a forum within which individual learners have the opportunity to engage with the process and express their understanding.
Though this may appear elementary, i.e. differing group members applying personal learning styles or social perspectives for instance. What is not as apparent is the effect upon the group dynamic. According to Vygotsky (1978) the internalization of a shared event by an individual may only be revealed at a later date when that individual is confronted by a similar problem/context within which to react. Thus the results of shared cognition may be seen to be internalized/referenced for future interactions. Furthermore the exposure to differing learning styles may actually affect the way in which individuals decide to learn themselves in future - collaboration leading to co-construction of knowledge.
Notes: Shared Cognition
Shared Cognition is seen as being situation dependant; it specifically enables social interactions (and knowledge sharing) within a given context that is immediately applicable to the task at hand. By linking context and knowledge the learner is made aware of the conditions under which the knowledge should be applied. In the wider realm the learner may thus see how such knowledge can best be applied in outside situations – thus fostering critical and creative thinking within an online environment, as with traditional face to face teaching, the relevancy of case based scenarios, or contextualised data is essential to focusing the learners attentions on the immediate needs of a problem or example and on the identified module learning outcomes in assuring strategic approaches to online experiences (Evans et al 2003).
The idea of co-construction of shared knowledge supports the premise that shared cognition is not just reliant on the factual knowledge and the common social grounding around that knowledge but on the processes and practices in which one may attain knowledge (Resnick, Levine, Teasley 1991). This implies that collaboration is most effective when there are common objectives i.e. that individual participants are working towards the same goal or set of goals, e.g. engaged in mutual problem solving. However work by Boxtel et al (2000) noted no discernable differences whilst testing collaborative and individual learning outcomes, this is an area of study that requires further quantitative analysis in particular.
The idea of co-construction of shared knowledge supports the premise that shared cognition is not just reliant on the factual knowledge and the common social grounding around that knowledge but on the processes and practices in which one may attain knowledge (Resnick, Levine, Teasley 1991). This implies that collaboration is most effective when there are common objectives i.e. that individual participants are working towards the same goal or set of goals, e.g. engaged in mutual problem solving. However work by Boxtel et al (2000) noted no discernable differences whilst testing collaborative and individual learning outcomes, this is an area of study that requires further quantitative analysis in particular.
Notes: Socio-Cultural Constructivism
The concept of Socio-Cultural ideals springs out of Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of proximal development, whereby individual development is a casual result of social interaction. In effect the individual internalizes any processes whilst party to social interactions and brings them to light at a later date independently. Notably he goes further to state that instruction is most efficient when students engage in activities within a supportive environment and when in receipt of appropriate guidance. This is never more apparent than in an online environment where it is essential to provide an identified framework (scaffold), in the form of peer support / mentoring and clear instructional design and learning outcomes to enable a learner to engage in a learning process whereby they may attain their own personal learning objective/s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)