Available Tools

(posted 7 Apr 2014)

On the basis of research, my earlier blog ‘Medium or Method?’ suggested that it “may be simplistic to conclude that either the use of digital technology or lesson content enhances results", rather that "both conjointly contribute to improving learning outcomes". As such, while optimising design to encourage learning, participation and engagement is important, the best tool or tools to facilitate the desired outcomes must be given equal consideration.  This blog touches upon two of the tools that could be utilised for LLN tutoring – computers and mobile phones – and briefly outlines how they have changed over time with the advancement of technology.    

In the early days of the Web, while there were a handful of bulletin boards in existence that permitted public contribution, information was predominantly 'read only' and disseminated by way of hyperlinked textual information (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Mills, 2010) - a format that, by today's standards - is somewhat dull and unappealing.  Further, many households did not have computers, and for those that did, internet access was generally via dial-up modem (Statistics New Zealand, 2009), a slow means of accessing material, and unsuited for viewing multimedia content.

The advent of faster internet connections and the advancement of digital technology made multimedia content viable, and paved the way to the increasing inclusion of images, sound clips, and video content. Such were the changes precipitated by digital advance that Kress (2005) foresaw two primary transformations in how information would be conveyed – firstly that images would supersede text as the dominant mode of communication, and secondly that the spatial design of computer screens would supplant the historical left-to-right layout of books.  Both of these factors are highlighted in the ‘Scale of the Universe’ (Huang & Huang, 2012) – a site that, while it includes textual information, conveys perspective and meaning primarily through the avenue of clickable images.

A timeline illustrating the comparative recency of
social media content on the internet
- click to enlarge
(Growth5, 2009)

With the introduction of multimedia content, not only has there been a change in what is displayed, but also in the nature of the content itself.  Web 2.0, as it is known, has become increasingly participatory (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006), as indicated by the timeline of social media content on the left.  This applies not just to social communication sites such as FaceBook, but also to sites with an educational slant such as wikis and many others that offer games and activities where one manipulates on-screen objects by clicking or dragging and dropping.  Several such examples, useful for LLN students, can be viewed on the BBC’s Skillswise website.

It seems then that there is now a wealth of interactive and engaging material available, with the proviso that one has access to a computer and to the internet.   However, in the area of Adult Community Education, funding has remained static in comparison to that afforded to other  providers such as ITPs (Tertiary Education Commission, 2008), resulting in very real financial constraints, constraints that are often paralleled in the personal lives of students.  As a result, computer-based teaching, for all its potential opportunity, may not be a viable option.  

Fortunately this does not preclude the use of digital tools, as another possibility that presents itself is the use of mobile phones.   As highlighted in the clip below from the Mind Matters show (Pohlman & Dubick, 2013), ten years ago mobile phones were only capable of texting or calling, but today’s smart-phones have inbuilt cameras, sound and video recorders, and internet access.  

The capabilities of cell phones have increased dramatically in the past decade
Pohlman and Dubick (2013)

As such, I believe the use of these phones is a worthwhile option to further explore for use with ACE students.   Device ownership, even for more mature users, has sharply increased in recent years (Statistics New Zealand, 2013), therefore there is more certainty of tool availability, and of students’ previous exposure to, and familiarity with, use. Various possible uses have been explored, for example speaking practice for ESOL students and answering questions via text, as demonstrated in Abajian, Lopez-Mercedes and Holzknecht’s (2011) YouTube clip. Davis (2012) speaks of students taking photos or making videos directly related to workplace or study tasks, and an indication of the possibilities afforded by mobile apps for educational purposes is evidenced by the recent release in New Zealand of Te Punamawa, described as "the world's first Maori language and culture mobile app course" (Maori Multimedia Ltd, 2014).

Alternately, in one-to-one tutoring situations, or where students’ phones may be text-only, options still remain such as responding to SMS communication or questions from the tutor, working with predictive text, practising message taking techniques, and using the inbuilt calculator.  The use of mobile phones may help to maintain student engagement and strengthen tutor-presence, both of which are important considerations, as discussed in my blog ‘Student Engagement’.  

Link to references
 

Student Engagement

(posted 29 Mar 2014)

My previous two blogs looked at 'best practice' recommendations and discussed whether it is the tool or the technique that advantages the digital platform as a medium for learning in certain situations.  Both blogs also touched upon the importance of learner engagement, a consideration examined in more depth in this discussion.

While student engagement is important regardless of teaching platform (Damoense, 2003; Davis & Fletcher, 2010; Honeyfield et al., 2010; Wright, 2010), it stands to reason that tutors responsible for a fully or partially online course may encounter greater difficulty inculcating engagement due to the dissociation that can be occasioned by lack of face to face interaction (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, Raffo, & Woodard, 2011; Kanuka, 2009; Sanders, 2006).  As a result, it is all too easy for the physical isolation of remote students to progress to affective isolation – resulting in disconnection from learning (Brinthaupt et al., 2011; Ladyshewsky,2013).  The possibility of this undesirable outcome may be particularly exacerbated for ACE students who are less likely to be fortified by either an identity as a ‘learner’ or well-developed, independent learning skills (Dymock, 2007; Tett & Maclachlan, 2008).  Furthermore, these students may already, for a variety of reasons, feel isolated from mainstream society (Balatti et al.,2006).

Without a sense of engagement, students can feel isolated
(Family Care for Grassroots Community, 2012)

What, then, can be done to encourage engagement, participation and motivation?  Ladyshewsky (2013), in his summary of research, expands upon Garrison and Vaughn’s framework for online teaching which comprises “social, cognitive, and teaching presence” (p. 3).  Teaching presence, in brief, refers to the tutor’s design and management of course content, and cognitive presence to the means tutors utilise to assist students’ understanding of content by encouraging reflection. While strong underpinnings of both teaching and cognitive presence are important for remote students, research suggests that successfully promoting engagement in a distance learning environment extends beyond those more characteristic pedagogical considerations. 

Ladyshewsky (2013) reports that of the three ‘presences’ comprising this framework, social presence was in fact the most significant predictor of student satisfaction. Social presence refers, in essence, to the creation of a bond between students-students and students-tutor, resulting in a greater affective attachment and hence greater course engagement.  The behavioural difference between tutors who do or don’t establish this presence is somewhat subtle, and is perhaps best summed up by Brinthatupt et al. (2011) who refer to it as “building rapport with students” (p. 1).  It is interesting that Ladyshewsky’s (2013) research found that tutor-student rapport carried even greater weight in terms of student satisfaction than that between students.

The tutor plays a key role in cultivating 'social presence'
(Kadroit Technology, n.d.)

The author suggests a variety of ways to cultivate this rapport - including timely and personalised feedback, individual acknowledgement of students, getting to know more about students as people while simultaneously sharing information about oneself, proactively encouraging constructive peer to peer dialogue, and actively drawing in outliers.  These small actions, it was found, significantly increased students’ sense of belonging and engagement.

If we consider that according to Ladyshewsky (2013) student satisfaction links strongly not only to present engagement with learning, but is also a predictor of future engagement, it would behove us to pay special attention to cultivating a social presence with our own students.  To my mind this is especially important for second-chance students as research indicates these learners are often fearful of re-engaging in formal learning, and require – in some instances – almost pastoral care (Ako Aotearoa, 2012; Whatman, Schagen, Vaughan, & Lander, 2010).  Brinthatupt et al.’s (2011) comment that “underprepared, first generation students probably should be treated differently from a graduating senior” (p. 522), while not referring explicitly to LLN learners, lends weight to the pertinence of this consideration.    Furthermore, the social aspects of learning and the consequent enhancement of social capital, may be equally if not more important to second-chance students as the learning itself (Balatti et al., 2006; Barton & Papen, 2005).  

In summary, while tutors of second-chance learners undoubtedly already strive to provide a supportive environment conducive to learning, the need for a heightened awareness of the importance of the social aspects of teaching increases commensurate with geographical and physical distance.   

Link to References

Design of Learning Materials

(posted 23 Mar 2014)

Question two: What are the key components that should be considered when designing online learning materials?

As mentioned in my previous blog, ‘Medium or Method?’, common sense would dictate that as tutors we must endeavour to put into place ‘best practice’ design recommendations with a view to facilitating optimal outcomes for students.  Research has highlighted a number of key design considerations for traditional tutoring practice, and many of these are mirrored in recommendations for digital learning (Wright, 2010).  

A factor of critical importance regardless of teaching platform is that students

Research recommends collaborative
learning and peer-to-peer dialogue
(University of Nebraska, n.d.)

are engaged, as this fosters motivation, and the likelihood of engagement is increased where material is relevant to students’ interests and/or needs, and utilises real-life learning scenarios as far as possible (Barton & Papen, 2005; Benseman, Sutton, & Lander, 2005; Helsing, Drago-Severson, & Kegan,2004; Jacobson, Degener, & Purcell-Gates, 2003).  Fostering inquiry or project-based learning is also advocated, as is the proactive encouragement of participation and dialogue, particularly peer-to-peer dialogue (Benseman et al., 2005; Tett & Maclachlan, 2008; Wright, 2010).  

Of worthy note, too, is Kop and Hill’s (2008) assertion that considerations for teaching should extend even beyond those given above.  The authors believe that, given the information explosion we face as a result of today’s digital world, it is critical to actively assist students with the tasks of finding relevant, reliable information and filtering extraneous information (a consideration touched upon in the light-hearted YouTube clip below [Yi, 2008]).   In relation to this, it may also be advisable to bear in mind Siemen’s (cited in Chen & Bryer,2002) contention that, as we move into the future, the “capacity to learn” (p. 89) is more critical than what is learnt.

 Digital Literacy in the Google Generation (Yi, 2008)

Accepting the best practice principles recommended by research, what Web 2.0 tools may be best suited for their encapsulation?  Mason and Rennie (2008) make a number of suggestions including “online debate, joint creation of a website, group presentations, and peer comments on student work” (p. 15) through “collaborative uses of blogs, wikis, e-portfolios and podcasts” (p. 15).  Many options exist, and Sanders (2006) gives the sensible advice that we should start with consideration of required content, and design of engaging construction, then look for tools to facilitate lesson planning.  With that as our starting point it may become obvious which are the best tools for a particular lesson.

However despite the wide range of applications afforded by digital means, it should be cautioned that research recommends that where possible digital technology complements, rather than replaces, face-to-face learning  (Conole, 2010; Damoense, 2003).   This may be especially pertinent to ACE students, who often need a nurturing learning environment that is non-threatening, supportive and constructive (Ako Aotearoa, 2012; Dymock, 2007) – an environment more difficult to establish without significant personal contact.

In addition, while Kop and Hill (2008) predict a pedagogical shift occurring where “[l]earners will be at the centre of the learning experience, rather than the tutor and institution” (p. 9) they also state that confidence, learner autonomy, and discipline are critical foundations for successful online learning.  Given the embryonic state of these qualities in beginning LLN learners, I feel it is crucial as an ACE tutor to design lessons that lean more toward instruction than facilitation.

Consequently, in Ally’s (2009) summary of the learning implications of the main educational philosophies, I found his recommendations for the cognitive-based model (pages 10 to 13) most relevant for ACE students. These recommendations include clear course outline with structured learning steps, the use of advance organisers to link students’ existing knowledge to new concepts, the use of content/concept maps to provide a cohesive overview, and students’ creation of mindmaps or similar to engender reflection and comprehension.  Combining Ally’s (2009) suggestions with a lesson designed to encourage group participation in a non-competitive environment would, I believe, embrace a number of best learning practices for second-chance learners.

Link to References

Medium or Method?

(posted 20 Mar 2014)

Question one: Is it the use of digital tools themselves or is it the design of lessons utilising these tools that enhances learning?

While research on the actual advantages of elearning in comparison to more traditional methods of delivery is somewhat sparse (Wright, 2010), that which does exist suggests learning can be enhanced by the use of digital technology (Ally, 2009; Damoense, 2003; Fletcher, Nicholas, & Davis, 2011). This blog considers whether this may be due to the use of digital tools themselves or the design of lessons utilising these tools.

Student involvement is considered essentail
in modern learning philosophies
(Purick, 2013)

As discussed in my previous blog, Philosophy, some debate exists over the neutrality or otherwise of technology, and similarly over the most advantageous educational philosophy (Kanuka, 2009; Sanders, 2006). In the past two to three decades, learning has been increasingly advocated as a social process, in contrast to earlier notions in which it was viewed as an individual cognitive skill. Various flavours of this shift in philosophy promote the tenet of students’ active involvement in the construction of their own learning, and highlight the importance of dialogue and group interaction, as opposed to students being regarded as passive and socially isolated recipients of imparted knowledge (Balatti, Black & Falk, 2009; Mason & Rennie, 2008; Papen, 2005).

Web 2.0 - inherently participatory
(Owen, 2013)

Almost simultaneously, the world of the internet has been opened up to the masses, with an unheralded social interconnectivity made possible through digital means. Web tools have progressed from Web 1.0 – where the objective leaned toward imparting information from authoritative sources – to Web 2.0 – which offers various platforms such as wikis and blogs, inviting group participation and contribution (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). Kop and Hill (2008) liken the resulting construct to a shared distribution of knowledge across a network of multiple contributors.

One suspects then that the serendipitous intersection of the advance of digital tools favouring a collaborative learning environment, and a teaching pedagogy advocating the same, has resulted in a mode of teaching that is increasingly endorsed and adopted as a effective teaching platform.

However, as Wright (2010) cautions, research suggests that where there has been evidence of the enhancement of learning utilising this platform, this is typically only evident when lessons present opportunity for engagement with authentic, relevant material, and invite active group participation. Conversely, tutorials and courses where content is merely presented on a web page as opposed to on a blackboard are unlikely to demonstrate significant improvement in student outcomes (Wright, 2010). This suggests it is not solely the technology per se that leads to improved attainment.

Multimedia presentation may
capture the interest of more students
(Conceito.de, 2014)

On the other hand, it is worthwhile considering that elearning may be inherently more engaging and motivating than tuition using traditional teaching tools. This could be the case especially for some students – particularly younger students, and those who are already comfortable with computer use or who are confident to explore unfamiliar environments (Davis & Fletcher, 2010). It is also possible, as suggested by Bonk and Zhang (2007), that the multimedia approach afforded by web tools may appeal to a greater range of learning styles and therefore capture the interest of a wider range of students. In that case, the tools themselves may indeed prove more attractive and hence more motivating than the traditional 'chalk and blackboard' milieu.

Also of consideration is the possibility that, particularly where Web 2.0 tools are utilised, feelings of empowerment may be heightened due to the first-hand experience of ‘having a voice’ by virtue of the ability to participate in online dialogue and engage in the self-publication of material. Further, the judicious adoption of Web 2.0 tools may also proffer viable avenues for extending students’ existing and new networks. Research suggests that these less tangible learning effects are important ‘soft’ outcomes of LLN tutoring, especially for second-chance adult learners (Balatti, Black, & Falk, 2006; Cookson, Menist, & Rice, 2007; Zepke & Leach, 2010). As such, the medium of digital technology itself may evidence more positive learning outcomes due to the comparative ease with which it lends itself to these ends.

In conclusion, it may be simplistic to conclude that either the use of digital technology or lesson content enhances results.  Rather, it seems more likely that both the medium and a lesson design that takes advantage of possibilities afforded by the technology conjointly contribute to improving learning outcomes. However, regardless of the teaching platform utilised, common sense would dictate that tutors endeavour to put into place best practice recommendations for lesson design to facilitate optimal outcomes for students, and this is a subject that will be explored in my next blog.

Link to References

Philosophy

(posted 15 Mar 2014)

Kanuka (2009), together with earlier researchers such as Searle (1999) and Pratt (2002), adjures us to reflect upon our educational philosophies, because “understanding our beliefs can result in informed practices” (p. 2). All three researchers state that our implicit beliefs regarding the primary goal of education affects our teaching methodology, and to not be fully aware of our presumptions may weaken the value of our practice. 

Differing viewpoints on the purpose of education are encapsulated by Kanuka (2009) and intersected with opinion as to the neutrality (or otherwise) of digital technology, resulting in an interesting matrix of the perceived worth of ICT for teaching.  Accordingly, it can be seen that one’s tendency to adopt digital technologies, and the manner in which they are incorporated, may be strongly influenced by one’s philosophical persuasion.

To examine our teaching philosophy is, I think, valid advice, however with increasingly centralised Government management of adult literacy, language and numeracy provision in New Zealand (Cain & Benseman, 2005), it must be remembered that it is not just our personal educational philosophies that impact tutoring but also the viewpoints and policies of other (perhaps more powerful) stakeholders.

By way of example, while Adult Community Education (ACE) tutoring (the field in which I am involved) heavily favours student-centred learning (Literacy Aotearoa, n.d.) and caters for students who are predominantly outside the workforce, the primary political thrust in New Zealand is toward the enhancement of work-based skills to improve economic standing in the “global economy” (NZ Department of Labour, 2007, p. 5). This may result in some tension between tutors’ individual teaching philosophies, and the practices necessary to access funding streams.

Despite possible friction, Government policy recognises proficiency with digital technology as essential to ensure New Zealand’s global participation (The Department of Internal Affairs, 2013), and within ACE settings computers are increasingly utilised as a vehicles for literacy provision.  There exists, therefore, a common ground that can be leveraged.  

The ACE arena with its focus on student-centred learning, most closely aligns with Kanuka’s (2009) description of a humanist philosophy with its emphasis upon “the individual student’s growth and development” (p. 11) and as such the optimal learning environment is deemed to be participatory and collaborative.  Therefore, where possible, digital technology that enables tutors to facilitate students’ participation and collaboration is most valued.

I say ‘where possible’ because ACE students are commonly, in my experience, from the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, and ACE learning centres themselves are notoriously underfunded (Culligan, Comrie, Vaccarino, & Sligo, 2006). As a consequence, the requisite technological infrastructure for implementing elearning is often quite simply non-existent.

This is not to say that digital technology is less relevant to ACE students than it is to other adult students in different learning environments, rather it may be difficult to rely upon the availability of digital tools and as tutors we may need to be innovative in their adoption.  Where the necessary technology is available I would encourage its use in recognition of the fact that proficiency with ICT technology is an increasingly important skill for participation in our society (Davis & Fletcher, 2010; Wright, 2010).   

In addition, incorporating digital technology could, I believe, be beneficial in that it may not only promote greater student engagement, but also provide opportunity for tutors to foster the establishment of social networks which may mitigate ACE students’ commonly reported feelings of marginalisation and isolation (Balatti, Black, & Falk, 2009; NCVER 2010).

For ACE students, activities such as interactive games and encouraging participation in social platforms such as Facebook come to mind, as do online video clips of interest or relevance to students, which could also be utilised to foster class discussion. E-portfolios, as recommended by Mason and Rennie (2008), that allow students to publish work and record their achievements over time, are a further possibility worthy of consideration.  Of special significance may be the growing field of m-learning – using the medium of mobile technologies – an option that will be explored in a later blog, as many of today’s students do have access to mobile phones.

Link to References