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.
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).
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
1 comment:
Hi Kieran
well cited using a range of references. I take your point that many of your ACE students may not have access to digital technology. I suppose this is where (other than in the prisons) lit and numeracy organisations should be encouraging funding going into it. I would argue that it therefore could be more relevant for those students. I would start with the needs of the students to see what digital tools they would like/need to use (email, internet, etc).And then design the reading writing etc to facilitate this. I agree with your reference Davis and Fletcher and the importance of digital technology for participation in our society.
Good evidence of critical thinking skills being used.
Post a Comment