Pass the SoLT

This posting is a bit of a free flowing rant as I react to yet another attempt to place 'pedagogy in a box' in the context of technology-enhanced learning. I guess it's human nature or a reflection of the Western condition to impose order on the 'natural' messiness of learning and I don't deny there's room for a little structure in academic thinking. And I need to self-disclose from the outset that I'm probably one of the most guilty on this front.

However, we need to be extremely wary of the dangers of reifying our abstract, conceptual and theoretical models as they're rarely a good match with the messy reality of teaching and learning. Indeed, well meaning efforts to put 'pedagogy in a box' typically convey reductionist and instrumentalist views of teaching which oversimplify the educative process. These models and frameworks can potentially do great damage. For one thing many of them are constructed on flawed assumptions and lack of solid research evidence.

The Technology Integration Matrix which I stumbled across this week falls into this category. It's framed around an earlier version of the matrix which for me is a variation of the original model of the levels of technology integration proposed during the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) Project. I recall writing a critique of this developmental model almost a decade ago because of the linear assumptions that teachers' practice with technology can be plotted across a continuum from entry to adoption, adaptation, infusion and eventually to transformation.

In one of the many variations of this model, Somekh (1998) introduced the idea of beginning at an 'orientation stage' and progressing through to 'creative integration'. And one of the better known models proposed by Knezek and Christensen (1999) culminated with 'creative application of technology to new contexts'. Although there was a degree of consistency in the different models, the concepts of integration and transformation are problematic.

I won't reiterate all of the arguments against these models but suffice to say (i) the focus is inherently technocentric, (ii) teacher development is not always sequential, (iii) few models are derived from what is known about the idiosyncratic nature of teachers' work and (iv) the sum of the whole is always greater than the individual parts.

Another important flaw is the uncritical adoption of more accepted educational frameworks that are often mapped alongside of the technology adoption continuum. In the case of the Technology Integration Matrix popular concepts based on Jonassen, Howland, Moore and Marra's (2003) work on meaning learning appear down the first column--namely, active, collaborative, constructive, authentic and goal directed. This framework draws heavily on constructivism (a proxy for learning by doing) which we know has a number of important failings and largely treats 'teaching by telling' as a dirty word.

In the context of tertiary education, there may be an argument to replace this single metaphor view of learning with something like Diana Laurillard's Conversational Framework. At least Laurillard's framework integrates a range of perspectives and acknowledges the complex feedback loops that are required for effective teaching and learning, but overlaying this seminal theory still does not overcome the inherent problems of trying to put pedagogy in a box. Of course it needs to be stated for the record that the Conversational Framework is not a 'box' theory.

Another example of simplistic educational thinking is the way in which Bloom's Taxonomy (including the revised version) has been embedded as almost folk psychology in efforts to conceptualize the way technology can be used for teaching and learning purposes. The taxonomy has been widely criticized and many scholars (see Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1998) have challenged its foundation for understanding higher-order thinking and more specifically designs for teaching, learning and assessment. Indeed, there is even a school of thought that Bloom's Taxonomy needs to be inverted to more accurately reflect the iterative and concentric nature of the learning process.

Yet the taxonomy continues to appear in the popular literature. A recent example is the widely circulated Moodle Tool Guide for Teachers which attempts to help educators make choices about the way they design online courses. No doubt there is demand from teachers for simple learning and technology matrixes but serious questions need to be asked about their validity, instrumentalist assumptions and deeper value in challenging and fundamentally changing teachers' deeply-rooted pedagogical beliefs.

Speaking more generally, in my view, we do a great disservice to teachers (and learners) by focussing on these technology planning tools without purposefully aligning and integrating them with thinking about your students' needs, the learning intentions you have for your course and the type of graduate profile or attributes you want your learners to have when they graduate. In this regard, selecting the 'right tool' for the job requires a far deeper conversation and has relatively little to do with the specific features of a learning management system.

But in the drive for standards and measurable performativity there are several rubrics that currently try to reduce the qualities of learning design and effective teaching down to a handful of categories--for example, baseline, good and excellent. I'll leave it for you to find some of these rubrics through your own Google search; but my concern here is that a far deeper level of critique is required in unraveling the thinking and hidden assumptions behind what on the surface appears to be a helpful rubric.

In some cases the term exemplary is adopted which should send a real warning message to educators as what constitutes quality or excellence is always contestable and an evolving concept. Moreover, the term has strong positivist connotations about the nature of performance. The question is always whose definition of exemplary or excellence is reflected and what types of teaching and learning practises are being recognized and potentially rewarded? Put another way whose voice is excluded in these conceptions of excellence as no definition is ever neutral?

On that note it's probably time to climb down from my soapbox but I have just one final point: I always remember as a student that some of my best, most challenging and personally rewarding learning experiences were during the worst taught and designed courses. The lack of explicit learning design actually forecd me to think and search for meaning as a learner. The point is not to support poor course design but rather reiterate there is no recipe or simple matrix that can capture the complexity, messiness and idiosyncratic nature of teaching and learning, and arguably many of the current course design aids and models are continuing to look for love in the wrong place.

Although just for fun the following short animated videos contain a serious message about the use of technology in education. They were made by Darren Crone, Director of eLearning at UT-Dallas and I first came across them in NUTN's regular digest of articles and information for the week ending 1st April. I'm sure that many reads will be able to relate to the scenarios as they're not too far from the situation in many tertiary institutions.

The first video addresses the issue of lack of student engagement (or teacher interactivity) due to 'technology neglect' as an outcome of extensive use of videoed lectures. It takes a serious poke at the idea you can enhance your course and the student experience by simply reproducing videos of your subject matter.

The second video also explores the use of video recorded lectures but in the wider context of the importance of carefully planning course design and development. Again the video contains valuable lessons about online learning and how NOT to throw together a course using new digital technology.

The last video in this series takes a cheeky look at the industry and political economy around the use of learning management systems (LMS). I'll leave it for viewers to decide which LMS companies best fit the sales scenario and whether Mr Weavile really has great news in this one-day only deal. Go to the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMg05ZhJScg

PS A brief warning - make sure you don't use a word with the letter 's' whilst watching this video.

Athabasca Press has released another online open access book as part of the Issues in Distance Education series. The latest book is entitled, Emerging Technologies in Distance Education.

Authored by Dr George Veletsianos the book claims to showcase 'international work of research scholars and innovative distance education practitioners, who use emerging interactive technologies for teaching and learning at a distance'. Notably, the work also claims to go beyond the hype surrounding latest technologies and highlights the important issues that need to be considered to enhance educational practice.

The validity of this claim requires further reading and interpretation but my first impressions are generally favourable. The book has four parts:

Part 1 - Foundations of Emerging Technologies in Distance Education

Part 2 - Learning Designs for Emerging Technologies

Part 3 - Social, Organizational, and Contextual Factors in Emerging Technologies Implementations

Part 4 - Learner-Learner, Learner-Content, and Learner-Instructor Interaction and Communication with Emerging Technologies

As you would expect, Professor Terry Anderson's chapter on Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies makes good reading. Part 2 also has some valuable contributions on learning designs and emerging technologies. Chapter 10 on Learning, Design and Emergence may also be relevant to people involved in using Moodle in large institutions as it shares lessons from the experience of two contrasting case studies.

Download the full PDF version to read more.

In my previous posting I talked about the value of specific pedagogical interactions in promoting student engagement. On the whole I concluded that the value of interactions for distance learners is not rocket science. I continue with this theme as I share my reflections on another article from my weekly reading pile.

Kirkwood (2009), in a recent paper published in 'Technology, Pedagogy and Education', reinforces the importance of why we need to drill down to specific types of interactions. The paper makes a sweeping claim there is limited evidence that technology-led innovations within Higher Education have achieved the anticipated improvements in learning. While there is an element of truth in this conclusion it contains an important conceptual flaw as technology-enhanced learning is not a single entity.

From a conceptual and methodological point of view, the answer to the question of whether technology has transformed learning requires a much finer grain analysis. It's problematic to make sweeping generalizations about the effects of technology when interventions range from the use of automated multi-choice tests (student-content interaction) to engaging learners in online role-play (student-student interaction).

Again it's not rocket science that some pedagogic uses of technology are likely to lead to better quality interactions and learning outcomes than others. In this respect technology is not neutral as different uses and applications have different pedagogical affordances - although these are strongly mediated by the teacher.

Read more »

This entry follows up on a question that I first raised several weeks ago: What is the definition of blended learning? This question continues to be asked in my own institution as we think about new designs for learning that attempt to exploit opportunities provided by new digital media. The following comments draw on an interesting Blended Learning Wiki that I recently discovered at the University of Manitoba. In a similar vein to my previous remarks, the wiki begins with the statement:

"There is no agreement on the definition of blended learning."

However, the wiki is useful as it goes on to compare and contrast some of the competing definitions in the literature. For example, Kerr offers the most inclusive definition of blended learning which involves:

"The mixing, combining, or converging of any combination of technological, temporal, geographical, institutional, curricular, program delivery, cultural, pedagogical, and/or other learner-centered elements within the context of learning."

Notably, the wiki observes that this definition effectively means that all teaching is blended in some form. Although I lean towards the value of an inclusive definition which recognises that blended learning is nothing new, the question is whether such a concept is helpful. What does it really contribute to our thinking? How does it move us forward?

An interesting response to this question appears in a short paper in the list of resources where the case is made for moving forward without a definition. Stephen Laster argues that a fluid definition is actually a strength as it leaves the door open for innovation and new developments. Again I see value in this argument but it leaves me unsatisfied, as I would like something more tangible to describe when talking with colleagues.

In the above framework, Littlejohn and Pegler help to partly satisfy my desire for a more concrete model of blended learning. They propose a model that describes four elements: space, time, activities and tools. At different ends of this model using a matrix approach is the distinction between teacher-centred learning and learner-centred environments. The goal in designing blended learning is to move pedagogic activities, tools, and space/time from the quadrant in the top left to the bottom right.

Although I appreciate the way pedagogy is central to this framework, it assumes a (false) binary relationship between teacher-centred and student-centred instruction. Arguably, it wrongly assumes that all teacher-centred learning is inherently bad. In my own work, and thinking, I prefer talking about 'learning-centred' approaches which incorporate elements of both teaching-centred and learner-centred instruction - depending on the context and learning intentions.

Changing tack, the wiki then explores the idea that if you can't define the concept then perhaps there is value in deciding what blended learning is not. An interesting list of 'nots' is provided, including:

• An online course with no f2f component.
• A conventional f2f lecture based class, where the powerpoint slides used for the lectures or course notes are put online.
• A conventional f2f lecture/seminar course in which students are required to do internet research for an assignment.

Lastly, the wiki makes an important distinction between blended learning and blended ONLINE learning. In the literature this is often a taken-for-granted assumption.

While it would be easy to be even more confused by the content of the wiki it was helpful in my own thinking to help underscore the importance of blending with purpose. Irrespective of the definition, blended learning is about making explicit and intentional decisions about teaching, learning and assessment (i.e., the curriculum). Arguably, the real value of the concept in the current discourse is to remind teachers that they have choices of how they teach and the way they interact with learners. In this regard, blended learning is a conceptual tool for critical conversations about learning design where we have the opportunity to challenge some of the sacred cows of university-level education. After all, in the words of George Bernard Shaw:

“Nothing has to be the way it is”.