One can say that when they engage in any learning process it is like trying to surf with a surfboard, which I have tried on a few occasions now that I'm living on the Gold Coast. There are moments where you feel excited about the idea, and think, "I can do this," only to begin struggling to stay on the surfboard let alone avoid being slam dunked, and then there are the occasions where you manage to jump on, and just when you think, after many previous falls, that you're going to stay on you are fall off again. This can also be like the experience of learning via online learning networks.
That is how my experience of being on the net has been, and not just since I have started learning in NGL. As an online lecturer I could see my students go through the same highs and lows, occasionally ducking from the deluge but eventually coming up for air and feeling good about what they have achieved. I think a lot of my reaction to networked learning is definitely due to "memories of the past," as Dave Snowden highlights, but also to trying to juggle all the elements of living with completing a Masters online.
I come late to the discussion on being critical of NGL, and am grateful for my peers commentary as they have provided me with many ideas on what the issues are in online learning. Mari highlights how "exposure to inappropriate material" is one of the disadvantages of the being on the web. Nevertheless, she outlines how teachers can help their students to "develop strategies and procedures to follow when finding unsuitable sites." This is certainly a pivotal skill for students in a world where everything and anything is on the Net.
Andrew highlights how some students may not feel comfortable interacting online, or may not have access to technology due to the region they live in or their socio-economic status. He also highlights how online learning takes a lot of self-discipline, and for some students they may not use the technologies appropriately. I have seen this in my teaching experience, as some students not using the tools effectively, such as neglecting their laptops, losing their chargers, not having the finances to replace lost items, not wanting to engage in the learning process, regardless of the medium. I have also seen many, particularly in my first few years of teaching in a lower socio-economic area where many students did not have access to broadband or their own computers. These posed several challenges in teaching and learning that I have discussed in previous posts.
Andrew's post "Being Critical of NGL" highlights pivotal points about technology in Education. There are issues with computer literacy, access and self-efficacy. I agree as many of the issues I see with student engagement is not to do with the technologies they are using or have access to. A lot of the time it is due to teaching and learning conditions, the student's disinterest in the subject matter or feelings of irrelevancy, his or her relationship with their teachers or with the academic process itself, and many other factors that are not even related to technology or networked learning.
Musette has added to the conversation how the "assumed knowledge of tools that support NGL is definitely a potential drawback" of the subject. Tracey has also expressed similar views, and has questioned many aspects of the course delivery, and the use of the word "dependency" when referring to learners who are unfamiliar with the mode of learning and how to operate in online networked world. I agree, as the way students are labelled can shape their self-efficacy and perception of online learning.
Musette, much in line with many others in NGL, reflects on how integrating the use of the tools, as I had done in a previous post, can be highly disruptive of existing "study routines," not to mention time consuming. I have certainly fell this disruption and protested earlier in the course. Nevertheless, as Siemen's says, learning is "violent," and if we're going to reap the benefits in an "age of perpetual distractedness," as I think we're all going through, we're going to have to go through the process. I don't think networked learning is going to go away, particularly as our lives get busier and the demand is there for more convenient ways of learning.
Neil Selwyn's paper "Technology and education: Why it's crucial to be critical" elucidated the importance of asking critical questions on how digital technologies in education. He outlines the danger in falling into an overly optimistic or positive view of technology's potential to improve life, particularly for individuals. He writes how educators, informed by Critical Theory, need to be aware of the political processes and practices that are shaped by issues of "power, control, conflict, and resistance." As I have expressed in previous posts, and Mari has also illustrated in her post "Kook-aid or Absinthe? critical thinking and literacy is a crucial skill for twenty-first century learners. Nevertheless, I think, and have expressed this before, an optimistic outlook is necessary, particularly if one is going to make changes in NGL or any any endeavour. Without optimism one will never move.
What I see technology as enabling is all the voices that were historically silenced or marginalised as having the opportunity to share their viewpoints, Yes, there are inequalities, and a genuine lack of access and literacy, but as Dave Snowden says, "If everyone has the same income there is no gradient and no change," meaning, as I interpret it, that some level of inequality is even necessary, as the "conflict, difference and variety" encourages innovation. What we want to avoid is extreme inequalities, such as is happening in Europe, where there are the preconditions of "catastrophic change."
Nevertheless, Selwyn's argument about how higher education has been "forced to become less critical in order to" maintain its "relevance and esteem in contemporary society," concerns me. I often wonder what will happen to some subject areas in the Humanities, particularly English Literature, Linguistics and other subjects that are not deemed lucrative in the market. Will people learn the humanities if it is deemed to be not profitable, or has this always been the case where the humanities is relegated to either the privileged or the one's who can tolerate being poor? These are questions that I will continue to seek answers to.
The burning or unresolved issue in my experience of NGL is the fairly limited communication with my peers. Although I know they are there, they are also incredibly busy people, as I am, and due to not being able to engage in person, commenting on each other's ideas has been relegated to a few comments here and there. Is this the nature of the beast, or is it something to do with the course's structure? Another issue is writing about my peer's posts and not being able to speak in person with them. Will they ever know what I mean if all they have is just the words on the page? I think this is why I love learning with others in-person. My experience of being an online lecturer revealed similar issues.
I am often thinking about how I need to develop a design-based research project on how NGL will transform my practice. This is definitely a challenge but I think I will be incredibly proud of myself if I do develop something worthy of being implemented by learning coaches or by students seeking to improve their learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment