For Activity 21 of Week 6 we were asked to discuss the relationship between technology and pedagogic theory and practice, drawing on your own context and experience
What is your own experience and view?
In a teaching context, I have often found myself in the position
of trying out new technologies with students as a new way to achieve certain
learning outcomes, without actively framing this process in pedagogical terms.
For example: A couple of years ago, with a group of English language learners,
I started using my smartphone to record small group discussions. I was simply using
the technology as an easy way to record learners and to provide them with that
recording. I then had the idea of uploading the files to Soundcloud, an app
which is generally used for music sharing. From using the app myself, I knew
that it was possible to comment at specific times on the timeline of a
recording so I decided to upload the student discussions to Soundcloud, give
them access and ask them to listen to their own contributions to the discussion
and comment on various aspects. I then asked them to make a comment on each of
the other students’ contributions in their group. This was followed up in a
face to face class looking at general feedback of what they did well and what
they could improve.
When doing this, I wasn’t actively considering theoretical
frameworks, just thinking it might help build learners’ awareness of their own
contributions to the discussion and allow them to focus on some of their
mistakes/errors. I suppose I could call this a social constructivist approach, but how many practitioners actually
think in these terms in their day to day teaching?
Do you regard either pedagogy or technology as more significant than the other?
Does one have to be more significant than the other? In the
above example, the revelation of what a powerful tool a mobile phone can be in
a classroom setting, coupled with the particular format of Soundcloud allowing
timed commenting were both crucial to what I was doing – they were the catalyst to try something new. However,
I wasn’t trying something new just because I was dazzled by the technology, but
because I saw potential to enhance my teaching practice. I could equally have
come at it from another angle. i.e. my learners lack opportunities to reflect
on and listen back to their speaking, how can I allow them to listen again and
comment on their own and others’ contributions and help to raise awareness of
some of their most common language problems? And from there selected a tool to
fulfil that aim. The perhaps often ignored role of technology here was that it
actually encouraged me to reflect on and develop my practice in new ways.
How do technology and pedagogy influence each other?
There’s no doubt that technology can and does influence the way
we teach, at least in most ‘developed world’ contexts. It’s easy to look at my
teaching now, and compare it to my teaching 15 years ago and list the changes
brought about by technology. However, I like to think that most of those
changes were accompanied by pedagogical considerations (conscious or
otherwise), and that I wasn’t simply employing new technologies in a ‘bells and
whistles’ spirit, because they were shiny and new.
For me the real interest and focus should be on how the context
for the learner has changed. The OED defines pedagogy as “the method and
practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept”.
Looking at the etymology of the word it seems to derive from words meaning child and lead, so to lead the child. If we’re leading our learners from A to
B and there’s one, well-defined path, then maybe that’s relatively simple. But
what if there are thousands of alternative paths? What if our learner may not
actually want or need to go to B, but instead needs to get to C or D? Is that
not, in some ways, what is happening now?
From the other MOOC I’m currently doing (ocTEL – am I connecting ‘nodes’
here?), I’ve come across the term ‘heutagogy’ which I think is potentially
interesting (at least for my own context) as it places the emphasis firmly on
the learner. Here’s a quote from an article on
heutagogy by Lisa Marie Blaschke
“Heutagogy applies a holistic approach to
developing learner capabilities, with learning as an active and proactive
process, and learners serving as “the major agent in their own learning, which
occurs as a result of personal experiences” (Hase & Kenyon, 2007, p. 112).
As in an andragogical approach, in heutagogy the instructor also facilitates
the learning process by providing guidance and resources, but fully
relinquishes ownership of the learning path and process to the learner, who
negotiates learning and determines what will be learned and how it will be
learned (Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Eberle, 2009)”.
Of course, this implies a
certain ‘maturity’ on the part of the learner and may not be relevant to
certain teaching and learning contexts. Nevertheless, it seems to be viewed by
some as particularly relevant to the current socio-technical learning
environment characterised by Web 2.0 tools. It also appears to be quite a good
fit with openness, MOOCs and connectivist approaches. Fred Garnett talks of the
PAH continuum (Pedagogy – Andragogy – Heutagogy) and describes the idea of heutagogy
and the open context model of learning
Do you have experience where either technology or pedagogy has been given more weight than the other?
Yes! Both. But I've run out of time... J
Very good, Jim. I agree with your conclusions. And thanks for the introduction to heutagogy.
ReplyDeleteGreat post and I also agree that they work together.
ReplyDeleteI have long felt discomfort with the term 'pedagogy' and its implied manipulation of the learner... thanks so much for 'heutagogy' - now how to slip it into my work!
ReplyDelete