Networked Global Learning (NGL), and the associated concepts, principles and practices can inform the role of the contemporary educator by providing the insight and skill to deal with a shifting educational landscape. The potential of NGL has given rise to a growth in research around this area; in particular, Connectivism tries to provide a theoretical framework specific to NGL (Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2011). This post will focus on two ways that NGL, and the ideas around it, can inform a teacher’s role: one way is to embrace the concept of the teacher as a facilitator/enabler, rather than the traditional instructor model; and, the second way is to encourage a student-centred approach to curriculum design that provides ample opportunity for knowledge to be at least partially constructed by the student’s contributions, collaboration, sharing and participation. These concepts will then be linked to two ways that my practice as a teacher can be transformed.
The ideal teacher presence in the NGL space is one that supports and nurtures the students to plot their own journey. The reason that this is so crucial for the NGL environment is that the Internet has generated an explosion of information, and a proliferation in the tools available to navigate it (Brown, 2015; Dron & Anderson, 2016). Previously, teachers were viewed as the keepers and curators of knowledge – knowledge experts (Siemens, 2008). Now, it is impossible and impractical for teachers to absorb and manage all the information relevant to their area; so, students need to acquire the capability to independently search, select, absorb and manage knowledge in a considered and informed way (Siemens, 2008; Keengwee & Georgina, 2013). Higher Education has been reluctant to relinquish their traditional role, and an example of this is their general hesitation in including social media as part of learning. Bonzo and Parchoma (2010) try to counter Higher Education’s objection to the use of social media tools in the curriculum, by arguing that social software tools can provide support for some of the principles of the more established education theory of social constructivism. These tools can encourage collaboration, connection, interaction, negotiation and sharing of experiences and negotiation in a type of online community (Bonzo & Parchoma, 2010; Neier & Zayer, 2015). This has been a reinforcing idea for me as a teacher, as I now have the theoretical base on which to justify the inclusion of social media; however, this is not always readily embraced by the HE sector. There is also the implication that by allowing students to freely explore knowledge and independently construct knowledge, universities will be relinquishing their role as “the knowers”; and furthermore, the existing hierarchical structure of Higher Education will be threatened, and accreditation and quality issues may not be properly controlled(Siemens, 2008; Brown, 2015). These issues would indeed be confronting for many academics, who spend their professional life building their knowledge like a portfolio that validates their standing in the academic world. However, as Siemens (2008) points out “the world of expert, clearly –defined and well-organised knowledge formed by ancient philosophers and deciphered by subsequent thinkers, has today given way to continual flux” (p. 3). Knowledge has become much more fluid with rapid change; the emphasis now is on acquiring the ability and skills to critically evaluate information. The challenge to transform as an NGL teacher, is to adopt more of a facilitator approach, by enabling students to effectively navigate and evaluate information (Brown, 2015; Kirkwood, 2006); and develop the capacity to extend their knowledge beyond their immediate need. This leads to the first possibility for transforming my role as a teacher. I deliver embedded literacy sub-courses in both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. It would be beneficial to include an NGL component to support and facilitate the learning; and therefore, demonstrate in practice the skills needed in a complex digital environment. This would include: digital learning that focuses on creativity and performance; strategies for meta-learning, including learner-designed learning; inductive and creative modes of reasoning and problem-solving; learner-driven content creation and collaborative knowledge-building; horizontal (peer-to-peer) learning and contribution to communities of learning (e.g., through social tagging, collaborative editing and peer review). (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, p. 12) Tool-belt Theory and Universal Design Learning (UDL) could help inform the design, as both can accommodate complex and diverse learning. Applying UDL to curriculum design creates a learning environment that can be adapted to individual learner’s needs (Socal, 2008). Tool-belt theory operates on the basis that student have a tool-belt, containing tools (skills) to be used according to the learning task and context (Socal, 2009). These two theories are complimentary as the teacher is responsible for implementing the UDL to provide the learning opportunity; and the student is responsible for acquiring the skill (tool) needed to participate in the learning activity. In terms of cost, there would be additional hours required to modify the sub-course, conduct cross-institutional research into existing courses, and review of complimentary social software to support the curricular. A second area that has informed my approach to NGL; but is yet to transform my practice as a teacher, is adopting a more learner-centred approach that will encourage more participation, sharing, collaboration and construction of knowledge (De Latt, Lally, Lipponen & Simons, 2007). In the current climate, providing learning experiences that support these processes is easier with the proliferation of tools that match the processes. Up to now, I feel that my approach to NGL has been largely influenced by the traditional structures that I work within. I have relied on the Learning Management System (LMS) within my institution, which tends to mirror the traditional structure of the classroom. The functions available within Blackboard Collaborate mimic the activities of a traditional classroom in that sessions are scheduled at a particular time; the sessions are teacher lead, and there is limited opportunity for dialogue to continue after the session had ended (McLouglin & Lee, 2008). There is now participatory technology that can better support the pedagogical requirements of NGL; and an essential part of curriculum design is deciding which technology best facilitates learner-centred education (Kirkwood, 2006). Decreased reliance on physical structures, and developments in technology, which enable interactive communication in delayed and real time, have opened up new possibilities for networking in an increasingly complex world (McLouglin & Lee, 2008; Siemens, 2008; Kirkword, 2006). Teachers need to cater to a broad range of students with a very wide and diverse set of needs. Teachers often lack the confidence or the technical skill to practise NGL. I would like to address this by initiating a Community of Practice (COP) for educators within my area to identify, evaluate, model and match possible NGL tools to the curriculum. This COP would incubate three forms of learning: task-based, practice-based and knowledge-based learning that would source relevant technology, and then evaluate, test and share knowledge with the rest of the community in a collective sense-making form (Riel & Polin, 2004; Downes, 2012 ). The costs involved in this initiative would be minimal because the additional hours could be largely allocated as professional development expenses. In conclusion, NGL will remain a significant part of my future as a teacher in the Higher Education sector. The challenge will be contribute to the process of infusing NGL into the design process of Higher Education in a way that fully utilises its potential to support learning outcomes, rather than being viewed simply as an optional extra. References Bonzo, J., & Parchoma, G. (2010). The Paradox of Social Media and Higher Education Institutions. In Networked Learning: Seventh International Conference (pp. 912–918). Brown, T.H. (2015). Exploring new paradigms in ODL: A reflection on Barber, Donnelly, and Rixvi (2013): “An avalanche is coming: Higher Education and the revolution ahead”. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 16(4), 227-234. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L, & Simons, R.J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science. 35, 257–286. DOI 10.1007/s11251-006-9007-0 Downes, S. (2012). Knowledge, Learning and Community. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/57737 Downes, S. (2011). “Connectivism” and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/connectivism- and-connecti_b_804653.html Dron, J. & Anderson, T. (2016). A typology of social forms for learning. In Teaching Crowds. Retrieved from http://teachingcrowds.ca/discuss -the-chapters/chapter-3-a-typology-of-social-forms-for-learning Keengwee, J. & Georgina, D. (2013). Supporting digital natives to learn effectively with technology tools. International Journal of Communication Technology Education, 9(1), 51-59. Kirkwood, A. (2006). Getting networked learning in context: are on‐line students’ technical and information literacy skills adequate and appropriate?. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 117-131. DOI: 10.1080/17439880600756654 McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.J. (2008). The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: personalisation, participate on, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher education. 20(1). 10-27. Neier, S. & Zayer, L.T. (2015). Student’s perceptions and experiences of social media in Higher Education. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3). 133-143. Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Online learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 16–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning Theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm Socal, I. D. (2009). The Toolbelt and Universal Design – Education for everyone. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://speedchange.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page_2046.html Socal, I. D. (2008). Considering universal design. Retrieved from http://speedchange.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/considering-universal- design.html
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives |