A Paper published for
Canadian Scholarly Literature and Research
Regarding School Libraries in Canada
for the TMC symposium held in Victoria, British Columbia on May 29-31, 2014
by Dr. Nancy Stuewe
Abstract:
Governments have called for teachers to adopt a new role as architects of
learning and use technology differently to support a constructivist approach to
teaching and learning. Likewise schools are being challenged to harness exciting,
yet unfamiliar information and communication technology. This paper is a segment
of a literature review taken from, Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of
Learning: A Case Study (Stuewe, 2013b). It
is intended to highlight the complex perspectives of how innovation is perceived
and adopted in technology-enhanced learning environments such as the Learning
Commons. This literature review contains a broad definition of technology
followed by a brief exploration of three different traditions of education. It
is important to note that there are many layers of traditions of education and
many perspectives of technology all interconnected. This exploration focuses on
the relationship between the role of the teacher, the beliefs in a teaching and
learning environment, and how technology might be employed to support these
beliefs.
Introduction
There is a new
culture of learning (Calgary Board of Education, 2013; Thomas & Brown, 2011). Governments have called for teachers to adopt a new role as architects
of learning and use technology differently to support a constructivist approach
to teaching and learning (Government of Alberta, 2010). The architect of learning is a metaphor used to describe the role
and context of teachers within a constructivist approach to teaching and
learning. An architect designs the plans from which others will build (Shepherd, 2011; Stuewe, 2013a). The new learner depends
heavily on technology to keep in touch, entertain, as well as obtain and share
information. “Today’s learners cannot
imagine life without the Internet and supporting technology” (Calgary Board of Education, 2013, p. 2). Yet, “they need to be
taught how these tools can be used in learning and critical thought” (Ontario School Library Association, 2010, p. 7). According to Sawyer (2006)
studies of knowledge workers show that teachers apply their expertise in
complex settings with a wide array of teaching tools from emerging technology
to pencil and paper. Schrum, Shelly, and Miller (2008) reported that enormous funds have been devoted toward encouraging
teachers to adopt new and emerging technology, yet not much has changed in
spite of this expense and effort. Loertscher, Koechlin, and Zwaan (2008) also argue that in the New Learning Commons, teachers need to view
technology as an extension of themselves and “not equipment or networks to
battle” (p.46). This paper is intended to highlight these many complex
perspectives of how technology is perceived and adopted in technology-enhanced
learning environments such as the Learning Commons. I begin this literature
review with a broad definition of technology followed by a brief exploration of
three different traditions of education. This exploration focuses on the
relationship between the role of the teacher, the beliefs in a teaching and
learning environment, and how technology might be employed to support these
beliefs.
Defining Technology for Education
Amiel and Reeves
(2008) noted
a need for educators to become more philosophical about their view of
technology and the value it holds to support learning. Ihde (2004)
related that a conservative interpretation of technology is “simply as a human
invention[s] which get used in good or bad ways” (p. 99). Ihde pointed out that
a tool perspective of technology could take on a value-neutral or a value-laden
role. Cuban (2001) suggested that policymakers as well as teachers expressed a
value-neutral view of technology in his study. However his observations
suggested something different. Cuban (2001) stated, “wiring schools, purchasing
computers, networking machines, and using the machines themselves are hardly
value-free behaviours” (p. 164). The using and choosing of technology for a
purpose is a specific value choice in itself (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Ihde (1993)
described this dualistic view as utopia versus dystopia. A double-edged sword
metaphor can be used to support this view. However technology is not just
objects we handle and as Ihde remarked, dualism, “makes for great difficulty in
a careful, balanced, and critical analysis” (p. 62).
A double-edged
sword metaphor of technology limits our understanding to good or bad in how it
functions or as skill we can master. Alternately, a ground-map metaphor may
permit us to be open to more complexity and to pay particular attention to the
process as well as the many activities, regions, resources, and boundaries of
technology use (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Ihde (2004) stated that John Dewey was concerned with “developing
a primacy of praxis orientation to philosophy” (p. 96). Hickman (2002) in
reviving Dewey’s pragmatism described technology as a complex process that
includes not only the device but also the thoughtful use of it with a goal to
resolve issues. Amiel and Reeves (2008) have also stated, “technology is much
more than hardware. It is a process that involves the complex interactions of
human, social, and cultural factors as well as the technical aspects” (p. 31).
This birds-eye perspective of technology allows us to expand the boundaries
around its use and to see technology as a tool to engage in work and at the same
time a skill that we can learn to master. However, Dewey (1938) might
tell us skill involves experience; to polish a skill requires know-how that
includes a process of teaching and learning. Amiel and Reeves (2008) have
stated “Technology is not a product and instead is a process: tools are merely
a product of a technological system” (p. 32). As a process, technology is not just a means
to an end, but ends and means all bound up interactively in practice (Hickman, 1992). It
may also be seen as a means through which we might relate, communicate, and
participate with the world. Looking at technology as a means to an end, one
might think of technology as a catalyst for higher student achievement. However
with a process view, technology is part of the interaction of learning that,
“generates new knowledge that challenges, adds to, or deepens the learner’s
existing framework of knowledge” (Burns, 2013, p. 39).
Technology in this light becomes an intellectual partner (Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2012).
Neither
technology nor education is value free. Branch and Deissler (2008) have
described education also as a process, a series of purposeful actions and
operations. They have suggested the process of education can be supported with
the use of technology. To expand the boundaries of technology’s definition
further, Internet-based learning management systems, such as Desire2Learn™ or
Blackboard Learning System allow teachers to consider technology also as an
environment, as a contained place to design, work, interact, and collaborate
within. Feenberg (2002) suggested that a new metaphor for technology might be a
house, not just a device but an “extremely rich and meaningful life environment”
(p. xi).
Within this complex view, people and not the device have volition. Teachers
have the opportunity to use technology with knowledge, action, and to make
connections with ideas and others. The Learning Commons might become an
expanded physical and virtual learning place or experience. New information and
communication technologies allow classrooms to connect with individual access
and also with participatory knowledge-building capabilities (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Wikis, blogs, Google Docs, and collaborative mind-mapping tools under
the direction of an Architect of learning, allow participants to critique and
potentially build on each other’s ideas. Amiel and Reeves (2008) raises concern
for teachers in that these new information and communication technologies
greatly increase the complexity of the integration of technology into
educational environments. Derry (2008) has cautioned, “even though recent work
has concentrated on more detailed questions of learning and pedagogy, the
question of knowledge has been neglected” (p. 509). Derry reminds us not to
downplay the human dimension of the nature of knowledge while at the same time do
not give into the glamour and hype of technology.
Traditions in Education
According to Sawyer (2006) much
of society is unaware of important discoveries emerging from the learning
sciences regarding how people learn and how technology can assist in the
process in education. Sawyer has suggested that most parents and policy makers
remember a focus on instruction and memorization of facts. Teachers also have
either spent a career learning the skills to manage an instructionist classroom
or have strong memories of being students in such classrooms. As schools move
from teacher directed learning towards process and knowledge building we find many
interconnected perspectives of knowledge exist in education. Teachers in
general find themselves in the midst of many philosophical and ideological
traditions (Barrow, 2010; Sawyer, 2006, 2008). Molenda (2008) noted
that how and if a technology is considered at all will depend on the beliefs of
teachers in a teaching and learning environment. Can the same be said for how a
learning space is utilized? The following is a brief exploration of the
relationship between the role of teachers, their beliefs in a teaching and
learning environment, and how technology is employed to support these beliefs
in three different traditions in education; instructionist, humanist, and
constructivist.
Instructionist
In an
instructionist tradition of education, knowledge may be considered acquired, gained
and measured in steps. Cunningham and Allen (2010) described unified standards
by age, content, and performance. Accountability systems may be structured by a
hierarchical approach for improving achievement in teaching and learning. The
role of the teacher may be seen as a knowledge authority to prioritize the
standards and find a way to measure progress. “The route to better learning
must be the improvement of instruction” (Papert, 1993, p. 139). The decisions teachers make are data driven. The teacher looks for
objective evidence of what is working or not in order to make appropriate
adjustments (McNeil, 2009). Educational research is utilized to assist teachers in achieving the curriculum
objectives not in participating in its creation (Sawyer, 2006). It stands to
reason that a learning space would also be organized and accessed to serve
these beliefs.
According to
Duffy and Cunningham (1996)
technology is adopted by instructionist teachers as a teaching or delivery tool
to “provide more effective and efficient delivery of instruction and hence more
effective and efficient learning” (p. 18). McNeil (2009) also noted that
technology is regarded as an instructional intervention in this systemic
curriculum. Technology becomes an efficient way to achieve knowledge
acquisition and proof of conceptual understanding (p. 161). The tool of choice
for the teacher with these objectives might be one that will help students add
to their knowledge store, such as word processing, CD-ROMs, PowerPoint, and
drill and practice websites.
Humanist
In contrast to
instructionist McNeil (2009) sees, a humanistic teaching and learning tradition
as concerned with self-understanding while fostering emotional and physical
growth. The goal of a humanist tradition might be to promote intellectual
skills necessary for independent judgement. Its purpose is to provide the
learner with intrinsic rewarding experiences that contribute to personal
liberation. The role of the teacher is to provide a warm and trusting
environment as well as to function as a facilitator while providing challenging
learning opportunities. In a humanist tradition, the learning focus is on
knowledge gained through personal concerns and self-expression. (Underhill, 1989)
described humanist education as a process of life-long learning. The job of a
teacher-facilitator is not to decide what the students should learn but rather
to identify and create the ingredients of a climate that helps free them to
learn and grow. Reflective discussion is a key ingredient for negotiation and
choice in matters of authority and responsibility in the classroom. Autonomous
and authoritative power is in continuous flux. Classroom decision-making
continuously shifts back and forth. A learning space might reflect this by
providing comfortable furnishings, plants and pleasant colours.
McNeil (2009)
highlighted the idea that technology opens many possibilities of exploration in
humanist education for teachers and students. However, its use focuses on
learning and meeting the needs of people. In the humanist tradition, technology
assists in finding the answers to personal questions, connecting people to each
other, and helping people to make decisions.
Constructivist
In a constructivist perspective, learning is a
complex process that is primarily under the control of learners. It occurs under
the teacher’s guidance within the context of the teaching and learning
environment (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Molenda, Rezabek, & Robinson,
2008). The focus is on a
process for learners to make connections in a whole world of meaning. The role
of the teacher is like an architect of learning, “one who plans, designs and
oversees learning activities (Government of Alberta, 2010). Teachers “strive to create environments where learners actively
participate in the environment in ways that are intended to help them construct
their own knowledge” (Jonassen, 2009).
Duffy and Cunningham (1996) stated that “learning is seen to occur when the
learner’s expectations are not met, and he or she must resolve the discrepancy
between what was expected and what was actually encountered” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Constructivists stress the importance of self-awareness of
learning and knowing. Duffy and Cunningham preferred the term reflexivity. It
is a process of construction in which conflict of understanding leads to
puzzlement and questions. These questions, McKenzie (2000) has related, help us
to make sense of the world. McKenzie also explained that in the constructivist
tradition, questions might be our “most powerful tools when it comes to making
decisions and solving problems, for inventing, changing and improving our
lives” (p. 1).
According to
Koechlin, Rosenfeld and Loertscher (2011) the
Learning Commons is student centred and looks like a multi-functional place
that allows for creativity as well as reflect the communities learning needs. The
Learning Commons approach emphasises individual and collective knowledge
construction and contains a collaborative learning model for both students and
teachers as learners (Koechlin, Rosenfeld, & Loertscher, 2010). This new culture of learning views learning as experimental,
inquiry based, collaborative, social and technology rich (Calgary Board of Education, 2013, p. 3).
Within the
constructivist tradition Howland, Jonassen, and Marra (2012) have used the term
meaningful learning to describe a process of learning through inquiry. With its
interrelated, interactive, and interdependent characteristics, meaningful
learning, they say, is active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and
collaborative. In this way Howland et al. have related that technology becomes
a “partner in the learning process” (Howland et al., 2012). Meaningful learning happens with technology, not because of
technology. They suggest technology can be thought of as an intellectual
partner in the learning process. Derry (2008) also
believes that the principle of design of technology-enhanced learning
environments should have a learning-driven focus and not a technocentric one.
Learning should drive the use of technology, not the other way around. In a
constructivist tradition, technology can be viewed as a pathway for learning,
not a delivery vehicle. Teachers do not need to become experts with technology to
support learners and learning; they only need a working knowledge and a
willingness to try.
Technology
becomes a complex notion of devices, process, and practice that also includes
methods of fruitful questioning. The implications of learning with technology
in a constructivist perspective are that teaching and learning becomes linked
in a process. Instruction may spark curiosity and questions can motivate
intelligent action that in turn may lead to an accumulation of experience.
Together instruction, questions, and technology could mediate the teaching and
learning process. Jonassen, Carr and Yueh (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998) have used the term “mind tools” to describe the process in which
learning with technology becomes an “intellectual partnership” (p. 31).
Conclusion
There is a need
for educators to become more philosophical about their view of technology and
the value it holds to support learning. The instructionist tradition of
education suggests knowledge is scarce and reality is objective; technology
then may be accessed as a neutral tool to support the efficient collection of
data and improve delivery of instruction (McNeil, 2009). However
in a constructivist tradition technology becomes a process or a networked
activity. Teachers look for more pragmatic evidence of projects completed (Howland et al., 2012). Truth is socially negotiated (Crotty, 1998). Learning
spaces would foster collaboration and the personal management of collective knowledge.
With a process view, technology not only lends itself to the exploration of
questions but also potentially could be used as a pathway to take learners on
an exploration and perhaps a place of learning.
It is important
to note that many layers of traditions and many perspectives of knowledge are
interconnected. As architects of learning, teachers understand that what makes
learning meaningful is a personal exploration of content, a focus on designing
good tasks for exploration, and a willingness to gain enough awareness of
technology to support the process as an intellectual partner. Technology will
be used in the Learning Commons to serve user in the time and place in which
they work. How teachers think of technology within the Learning Commons and how
they create, use, and manage learning resources depends greatly on their
beliefs about how people learn as well as the demands of their job (Molenda et al., 2008).
What has emerged
from the literature is that technology is a complex notion of devices, process,
and practice that also includes methods of fruitful questioning. The
implications of learning with technology in a constructivist perspective are
that teaching and learning becomes linked in a process. With a process view,
technology may be viewed as a place in which we might relate, communicate, and
participate with the world. This view of technology highlights a need to
encourage teachers to develop an awareness of a relationship between learning
and technology. The focus then becomes more on how do we support teachers to
become more like architects and use technology support the human process of
teaching and learning and less on technology as a means to an end and flashy
technocentric thinking.
REFERENCES
Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and
educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational
Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.
Barrow, R.
(2010). Schools of thought in philosophy of education. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow,
D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 21–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Branch, R.,
& Deissler, C. (2008). Processes. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda
(Eds.), (pp. 195–211). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burns, M.
(2013). Success , failure or no significant difference : Charting a course for
successful educational technology integration. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 38–45.
Calgary Board of
Education. (2013). Library to learning commons implementation guide (pp. 0–17).
Calgary, AB.
Crotty, M.
(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process (p. 248). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cunningham, C.,
& Allen, B. (2010). Philosophical questions about learning technologies. In
R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 481–502).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Derry, J.
(2008). Technology-Enhanced learning: A question of knowledge. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 505–519.
Dewey, J.
(1938). Experience and education (p. 91). New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.
Duffy, T. M.,
& Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and
delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), (pp. 170–198). New York:
McMillan.
Feenberg, A.
(2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited (Rev., pp. xi,
218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Government of
Alberta. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Edmonton, AB.
Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/7145083/inspiring education steering
committee report.pdf
Hickman, L.
(1992). John Dewey’s pragmatic technology (p. 234). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Hickman, L.
(2002). Larry Hickman lecture on John Dewey, democracy, and global citizenship.
Retrieved May 12, 2010, from http://www.ikedacenter.org/thinkers-themes/thinkers/lectures-talks/hickman-lecture
Howland, J.,
Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ihde, D. (1993).
Philosophy of technology: An introduction. New York: Paragon House.
Ihde, D. (2004).
Philosophy of technology. In P. Kemp (Ed.), (pp. 91–108). Printed in the
Netherlands: Springer.
Jonassen, D. H.
(2009). Technology as Cognitive Tools : Learners as Designers, 1–7.
Jonassen, D. H.,
Carr, C., & Yueh, H.-P. (1998). Computers as mind tools for engaging
learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.
Koechlin, C.,
Luhtala, M., & Loertscher, D. V. (2011). Knowledge Building in the Learning
Commons. Teacher Librarian, 38, 20–23,26.
Koechlin, C.,
Rosenfeld, E., & Loertscher, D. V. (2010). Building the learning commons: A
guide for school administrators and learning leadership teams. Salt Lake, UT:
Hi Willow Research & Publishing.
Loertscher, D.
V., Koechlin, C., & Zwaan, S. (2008). The new learning commons: Where
learners win. Salt Lake: Hi Willow Research & Publishing.
McNeil, J. D.
(2009). Contemporary curriculum: In thought and action. University of
California, Los Angeles: John Wiley and Sons.
Molenda, M.
(2008). Using. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), (pp. 141–173). New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Molenda, M.,
Rezabek, L., & Robinson, R. (2008). Facilitating learning. In A.
Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), (pp. 15–47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ontario School
Library Association. (2010). Together for learning: School libraries and the
emergence of the learning commons. Toronto. Retrieved from
https://www.accessola.org/Documents/OLA/Divisions/OSLA/TogetherforLearning.pdf
Papert, S.
(1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer
(p. 242). New York: Basic Books.
Sawyer, R. K.
(2006). The new science of learning (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sawyer, R. K.
(2008). Optimizing learning: Implications of learning sciences research (pp. 45–62).
Centre for Research and Innovation: OECD Publishing.
Schrum, L.,
Shelly, G., & Miller, R. (2008). Understanding tech-savvy teachers:
Identifying their characteristics, motivation and challenges. International
Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1–20.
Shepherd, C.
(2011). The new learning architect. Amazon Digital Services, Inc.: Onlignment.
Stuewe, N.
(2013a). The Architect of Learning. In World Conference on E-Learning in
Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013 (pp. 2117–2124).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Stuewe, N.
(2013b). Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning. University of
Calgary, Calgary, AB. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11023/612
Thomas, D.,
& Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the
imagination for a world of constant change (p. 104). USA: CreateSpace.
Underhill, A.
(1989). Process in humanistic education. ELT Journal, 43(4), 250–260. Retrieved
from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/250.short
No comments:
Post a Comment