HOW CAN I SUPPORT A WEB OF BETWEENNESS THROUGH INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (ICT)
A paper to be presented at the
EARLI Conference SIG Invited symposium Teaching and Teacher Education:
‘Demonstrating accountability through our self-study practices as teacher educators’
Nicosia 2005
Margaret Farren
Dublin City University
Click here to download in Word Format
Abstract
In 1990, Boyer, the past President of the Carnegie Foundation of Teaching and Learning, based at Stanford University, urged academics to move beyond the teaching versus research debate. He identified forms of scholarship that moved beyond the scholarship of discovery (research). These included the scholarship of integration, scholarship of application and scholarship of teaching. Boyer pointed to a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar: “a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching” (Boyer, 1990, p.24). The recognition of practice-based research as a valid form of research in higher education is evident in the UK Government’s Research Assessment Award (RAE 2008) which states that researchers should be able to submit applied and practice-based research that they consider to have achieved ‘due standard of excellence’ ((RAE 2008, para. 47). Furlong & Oancea suggest action research can contribute to more theoretical knowledge production while at the same time achieving changed practice. They believe that it “challenges any simplistic distinction between ‘pure’, applied’ and ‘strategic’ research” (Furlong & Oancea, 2005, p.8).
In my practice-based research, I
demonstrate how I am contributing to a knowledge base of practice by creating
my ‘living educational theory’ (Whitehead, 1989, 2004). This involves me in
systematically researching my practice in order to bring about improvement. The
context of my research is in collaboration with participants on the MSc in
Computer Applications for Education and MSc in ICT in Education and Training
Management at Dublin City University. Coulter and Wiens (2002, p.23) point out
that it is crucial that teachers and researchers become better educational
judges of practice. I explain how the educational values that emerge in the
course of my practice based research become living standards of judgement.
These standards and values include a ‘web of betweenness’ (O’Donohue 2003) and
a ‘pedagogy of the unique’. ‘Pedagogy of the unique’ is characterized in the
recognition that each individual has a particular and different constellation of
values that motivate the enquiry and a different context from within which the
enquiry is developing. The ‘web of
betweenness’ refers to my belief that we learn in relation to each other and
how ICT can bring us closer to the meanings of our embodied values.
Objectives of the session
The objectives or my presentation
are as follows:
i). To communicate the meanings of my embodied values of a web of
betweenness and pedagogy of the unique.
ii). To demonstrate
how Information and Communications Technology (ICT ) can make our teaching
public through ‘artefacts
that capture its richness and complexity’ (Shulman, 2004, p.142).
iii). To
provide evidence of how I am supporting practitioner-researchers to develop
their own living standards of judgement from their practice-based research.
Educational and scientific importance
In their review of the literature
on pedagogies in higher education, Zukas and Malcolm (2002, p.1) suggest that
the new specialism of teaching and learning in higher education has developed
without reference to adult education.
Neglecting the strongly self-motivated learner has tended to impoverish
many current approaches to teaching and learning in higher education. They
found little evidence of critical practice in writings on higher education
pedagogy. As diverse and more mature types of students enter higher education,
it is vital that the traditional role of the educator as one who offers content
knowledge is broadened so that teaching is aimed at developing students’
capacity to create their own understandings and insights through participation,
negotiation and dialogue. Barnett’s understanding of a ‘higher education’ is
one where students are provided with the space to develop their own voice
(Barnett, 2000, p.160).
As the full potentiality of human
computer interaction is developed there is likely to be a further explosion of
the use of multimedia and the ability for people to communicate in more dynamic
ways through use of technology. Myers
(1996, p.3) points to the emerging technologies that are a result of research
in human-computer interaction. These extend from the mouse pointing device,
windows, computer applications such as drawing, text editing and spreadsheets
and hypertext, and to the new technologies of the future, such as multimedia
and 3D, gesture recognition, natural language and collaborative learning
technologies. Myers believes that user interfaces will most likely be one of
the main 'value-added competitive advantages' of the future, as both hardware
and basic software become commodities. We are still witnessing the pursuit of a
developmental paradigm whose eventual outcomes can only be guessed at.
By contrast with the evident potentiality
and dynamism of the new technology, studies of its impact upon teaching
practices in higher education indicate that, as yet, teachers in general are
making use of email and web resources but more advanced technologies, such as
online learning environments and wireless solutions are only being used to a
limited extent. Few in higher education are dealing in a practical manner with
the new technology’s central ideas about the handling of knowledge.
An international comparative study on Models of Technology and Change in Higher Education was carried out by the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies and the Faculty of Educational Science and Technology of the University of Twente in the Netherlands (Collis & van der Wende, 2002). The study found that Institution wide technological structures are now in place. However, rich pedagogical use of the technological infrastructure is still in development. Van Merriënboer et al. (2004, p. 13) point out that the central concept in handling of e-learning currently tends to center upon ‘content’. They regret that forms of e-learning that emphasise the active engagement of learners in rich learning tasks and the active, social construction of knowledge and acquisition of skills are rare. In other words, the potential of the technology to transform the teaching/learning environment is still far from being realised in the institutions of higher education.
It is worthwhile, at
this stage, outlining the contribution ICT has offered to the development of my
educational knowledge, and in particular, to the development of new standards
of educational judgement in educational practice. ICT has been used to complement and support my pedagogy as it
unfolds. Some examples in the context
of this presentation include: digital video to record my teaching and
supervision, online learning environments that have sustained ongoing dialogue
among practitioners and myself, desktop videoconferencing that has opened up
the classroom environment and provided opportunities to share our knowledge
with others. Multimedia and web based artefacts with supporting text provide
evidence of how practitioners are developing living standards of judgement
through asking, researching and answering the question, ‘How do I improve my
practice?’
Methods
In creating my ‘pedagogy of the
unique’ through a living educational theory approach to research, I provide
evidence to show my educational influence in my learning, in the learning of
others, and in the education of social formations. The methods I use to validate my claims include:
·
Living eeducational theory
action research cycles;
·
Winter’s (1989) six criteria
of rigour;
·
Social validation meetings.
Living Educational theory accounts of learning methodology involve expressing concerns when educational values are not lived in practice, imagining a way forward, gathering data, evaluating practice on effectiveness of actions, modifying plans in light of the evaluation.
Winter’s (1989) Six Criteria of Rigour include dialectics, reflexivity, collaborative resource, risk, plurality, theory, practice and transformation.
Habermas’s (1987) Criteria of Validity include four criteria of social
validity, i.e. comprehensibility, truth, rightness and authenticity.
In
assessing the quality of my practice based research I focus on my embodied
values and living standards of judgement.
Data Sources
The following data sources will be used to provide evidence of the standards of judgements used to show learning in the public interest.
i). Accounts of my learning as a higher education educator.
ii). Accounts of the learning of Practitioner-Researcher accounts on the MSc in Computer Applications for Education and MSc in Education and Training Management (ICT) at Dublin City University.
Conclusion
In the context of my ‘pedagogy of the unique’ the dialogic processes reflect my growing openness to learning and relearning with others, and reveal that I believe that education should be a democratic process that gives adequate “space to each participant to contribute to the development of new knowledge, to develop their own voice, to make their own offerings, insights, to engage in their own actions, as well as to create their own products” (Barnett, 2000, p. 161). I believe that I have directed my teaching towards learning by gradually providing opportunities for participants to take responsibility for their own learning and develop their capacity as learners.
My practice based research enquiry has indeed been a collaborative
endeavour that could not have taken place were it not for the participation of
students in the creation of knowledge in collaboration with me. I have
articulated the educational values that have emerged in my practice and I
believe that I have endeavoured faithfully to live these values in my
practice. My values can now be seen to
be communicable standards of judgement.
I hope that my enquiry will contribute to new understandings of the link
between teaching and research and how teachers can contribute to a knowledge
base of practice through use of ICT.
References:
Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the University in an age of supercomplexity. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collis,
B. & van der Wende, W. (2002). Models of Technology and Change in Higher
Education. An international comparative survey on the current and future use of
ICT in Higher Education. [Accessed from www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/ictrapport.pdf on May, 2005].
Coulter, D. and Wiens, J. (2002), Educational Judgement: Linking the Actor and the Spectator. Educational Researcher, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 15-25.
Furlong, J. & Oancea, A.
(2005). Assessing Quality in Applied and Practice-based Educational Research. A
Framework for Discussion [Accessed from http://www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/Qualitycriteria.pdf
on July 4th, 2005)
Myers, B. A. (1998). A Brief
History of Human Computer Interaction Technology. ACM Interactions. Vol. 5, No.
2, (pp. 44-54).
O’Donohue, J. (2003) Divine
Beauty. London, Transworld Publishers.
RAE (2008). Research Assessment
Exercise.Initial decisions by the UK Funding Bodies. Retrieved 1 June, 2005, from
http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2004/01/rae0401.doc.
Shulman, L. (2004). Teaching as
Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitehead, J. (1989) ‘Creating a living educational theory
from questions of the kind, “How do I improve my practice?”’, Cambridge Journal
of Education 19(1): 137–153.
Whitehead, J. (2004) What Counts
as Evidence in the Self-studies of Teacher Education Practices? - final draft
before publication in Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey V. K &
Russell, T. (eds) (2004) International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and
Teacher Education Practices. Dordrecht; Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Merriënboer, J., Bastiaens,
T., & Hoogveld, A. (2004). Interstructional design for Integrated
e-learning in Jochems, W., Van
Merrienboer, J & Koper, R. Van Merrienboer, (2003). Integrated E-Learning: Implications
for Pedagogy, Technology and Organization,. Routledge.
Winter, R. (1989) Learning from
Experience. London, Falmer Press.
Zukas, M. & Malcolm, J.
(2002). Pedagogies for Lifelong Learning: Building Bridges or Building Walls?
Chapter 13 in Harrison, R., Reeve, F., Hanson, A. and Clark, J. (2002)
Supporting Lifelong Learning. Volume 1: Perspectives on Learning. Routledge. Pp
203-217.
