Bringing it all together: it's about teaching!

As the discussion comes to a close, a recurring theme has presented itself to me: what we do with learning resources is the key. This, I believe, is supported by both anecdotal evidence and broader educational research.

I have been particularly challenged by the work of John Hattie. When talking about improvements in student learning – which is, of course, what we should be focused on – Hattie (2003) concludes, ‘[t]hat which makes the difference is clear – it is the person who gently closes the classroom door and performs the teaching act’ (p.9). While the students themselves make the greatest impact on their learning (see the above pie-chart), the teaching is the aspect that we can actually have some control over.

When working with exciting new innovations in technology or newly developed curriculum, we can sometimes lose focus on what is our actual task. It is my contention that ICTs need to serve student learning. I have to confess that, at times, using an exciting technology in the classroom has been the primary reason for developing a learning activity, rather than thinking carefully about how the technology will enhance the learning experience of the students. Lang (2010), completed a study which focused on “276 high school students' participation and interaction in a project-based learning environment...mediated by an asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) tool.” The results of this study suggested rather emphatically that the CMC tool did not adequately challenge students or provide a context for them to engage in high-order thinking. The CMC tool was an effective platform for students’ “comparing and sharing information” which comprised 82.7% of their notes. However, “the discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statements” made up just 13.5% of their note-taking. And, disappointingly, “negotiation of meaning/co-construction of knowledge” was only evident in 3.7% of the notes.

So, what is the conclusion? Should we not utilise ICTs in education? Well, of course not. What it highlights to me is that: a) ICT education developers need to think carefully about what constitutes good learning when constructing e-learning programs and environments and; b) teachers need to become more adept at using these ICTs in the classroom.

Judd et. al (2010) have also conducted research which highlights the fact that quality teaching is primary to the technological tool itself. They write, “Wikis are widely promoted as ‘collaborative tools’, yet this and other research indicates that while aspects of their functionality can support collaboration, their success or failure strongly depends on the way in which individual activities are designed and implemented” (emphasis mine). A similar view is affirmed by Dell et. al (2010) whose research findings suggest that “methods of instruction are more important than the delivery platform” in regards to student achievement.

All this leads me to conclude that the focus of our research, practice and debate should not be which is better out of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning, but how do we design and deliver more effective e-learning so that student achievement is enhanced? So finally, when thinking about our priorities in educational policies and planning, in the words of John Hattie (2003), “We need to ensure that the influence of teachers is optimised to have powerful and sensationally positive effects on the learner. We need to direct attention at higher quality teaching”. This is fundamental both in regards to e-learning and face-to-face instruction.

Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions, links and prompts along the way during this discussion. I hope we have all found this experience an enriching one, prompting us to become better educators.

Stephen

Constructing a Constructivist Context

Micah has written about the link between synchronous e-learning and constructivism. In my last post, I suggested that educators need to create structures which ensure that asynchronous learning adheres to social constructivism. In this post, I’d like to define more clearly social constructivism and discuss how it relates to the construction or design of e-learning.

Ernest suggests that social constructivism ‘posits that human agreement is the ultimate arbiter of what counts as justified knowledge.’ So then, social constructivism goes beyond mere cognitive constructivism in the sense that new knowledge is created and agreed upon by the community. So perhaps we can consider again Micah’s comment on the object sorting activity in his last post where he suggests that ‘students not only work with their peers, they also listen and learn from them’. Do the students agree upon the new knowledge? Implicitly, they probably do. But, to what extent does the facilitator need to ask questions that help students come to agreement on new, constructed knowledge? My guess is that agreement on new knowledge – with some level of sophistication – is more likely to happen naturally as students get older, though it cannot be a given.

Let me use blogging as an example. Students in my History class may each write their own blogs about particular historical issues (let’s say social life in Nazi Germany). Students may read each other’s blogs and find themselves thinking about new ideas. Indeed, they may even leave comments and influence each other’s thinking through debate. But have they agreed upon new knowledge?

My intuition tells me that: 1) students almost certainly construct their own new knowledge; 2) will often, implicitly, agree upon this new knowledge; 3) will rarely reflect that they have, together, constructed new knowledge without the guidance of an educator.

This guidance could manifest in a variety of ways. It may be through carefully structured questions, or it could be through careful development of learning activity guidelines and it should involve careful consideration of how the technology can be used to gain the desired results. Muniz-Solari and Coats (2009) put this another way, suggesting that a ‘system framework, an e-learning “ecosystem,” must be developed that specifies the learning system architecture for pedagogical development’ and that this “ecosystem” ‘must allow flexible, learner-centered education’.

Furthermore, Matt Rota writes that ‘highly effective asynchronous eLearning begins with understanding the roles that fall into the realm of the eLearning instructional design process’. Thus it would seem that the role of the educator is paramount to ensuring effective learning takes place in an asynchronous environment. Indeed, it would appear that constructivism does not have a ‘mind of its own’ but needs to be expertly manipulated.

Increasingly, it seems to me that a truly rich learning experience online will require a combination of synchronous and asynchronous activities. Certainly, I’m not convinced that asynchronous learning on its own provides enough opportunities to allow for shared, agreed upon, newly-constructed knowledge. Muniz-Solari and Coats (2009) affirm this when they write: ‘A need exists to incorporate real-time synchronous technologies for text, visual, and audio communication.’ Specifically, in relation to the “togetherness” of the learning experience, it may be argued that synchronous technologies work to enhance students’ sense of belonging to what may actually be deemed as a learning community (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). 

I wonder what the experiences of others have been in relation to e-learning and social constructivism. Have you found that synchronous technologies have contributed to a sense of community – learning from and with each other?