1. Rethinking eLearning: Bridging the Technology-Pedagogy Divide with an Appropriate Theoretical Framework Julie Gannon The Futures Academy Faculty of the Built Environment Dublin Institute of Technology 8 th Annual Irish Educational Technology Conference Dublin Institute of Technology, Bolton St. 23-25 May, 2007

2. Introduction  Research Project Manager, The Futures Academy since 2003 “Twice the Size: Imagineering the Future of Irish Gateways” LUDA: Improving the Quality of Large Urban Distressed Areas  Teaching in School of Real Estate & Construction Economics  Postgraduate Certificate & Diploma in Third Level Learning & Teaching Designing eLearning Module  Rationale for paper!?..... “Futures Studies” module eLearning element? WebCT

3. Outline of Presentation  Objectives of paper  Context: eLearning: A Changing Learning Landscape  Key Issues: - Technology versus Pedagogy - Theories underpinning eLearning Design - Translating Theory to Practice  Conclusions

4. Objectives of Research Paper 1.Highlight the need to rethink the pedagogy of e- learning in light of technology-pedagogy divide. 2.Discuss the importance of underpinning design with a sound theoretical framework. 3.Describe the theories underpinning e-learning. 4.Outline the value of social constructivism in promoting collaborative learning. 5.Outline the current problems facing teachers in designing effective online learning.

5. eLearning: A Changing Learning Landscape  Globalisation, Information Age, Mobile Age, Knowledge Society, Network Society...challenges for education  Power to transform traditional learning  Profound implications for supporting learning  Progressive integration in education  Change to pedagogy?  Yet to “release” the pedagogical affordances of learning technologies  Forces driving e-learning agenda: Technology? Economic? Pedagogy? Value?  So, how can e-learning best facilitate student learning?

6. Bridging the Technology-Pedagogy Divide  Technology alone does not automatically improve learning  Technological goals should not override pedagogical goals  To date, e-learning has been technology-led, not theory-led  Need to ground e-learning in educational theory  Prevent a mismatch between design of learning & epistemological roots

7. Underpinning eLearning Design with a Sound Theoretical Framework “There is not, and probably never will be, one great unified General Theory of Adult Learning that will solve all our problems.” (Zemke, 2002).  Different theories prescribe different strategies  No one school of thought should be exclusively used to design e-learning  Goal: right theory (or combination of theories) for right situation(s)  Learning should be ‘fit for purpose’  Blended approach caters for broad target student audience & different learning styles  Underpin design with an eclectic mix of principles from the different learning schools

8. Designing eLearning Epistemology Theories of Learning Strategies or Principles of Design eLearning Content, Activities & Support Learning Outcomes

9. Theories underpinning eLearning  Initially computers applied according to empiricist theories  Shift from behaviourist to constructivist theories of learning (teacher  student-centred)  Generally agreed that e-learning should be supported by: Behaviourism Cognitivism Constructivism  Provide a range of learning perspectives for different styles  Requires a thorough understanding of the notion of ‘learning’  Learning as: understanding, experience, reflection, activity, social practice…  Recent interest in social constructivist pedagogies… Based on Villalba and Romiszowski (2001)

10. Social Constructivist Pedagogies  Learning involves acquiring knowledge & understandings to construct meaningful solutions to real problems.  Relationship between learner, activity and environment.  Learning is ‘situated’. (Lave & Wenger, 1991)  A process of engagement in ‘community of practice’. (Lave, 1999)  eLearning present extraordinary opportunities to support this type of learning.  Technology becomes a medium where understandings are socially constructed and shared.  Mindful approach to design - process & product.  Major implications for designing e-learning…

11. Implications for Design

12. Translating Theory into Practice  Range of guidelines to design sound pedagogy  Variety of issues to consider: Pedagogical Technical Social/Cultural Ethical Organisational Institutional…  Theories help address these issues by informing design  Theories can be quite abstract & difficult to operationalise in practice  Research suggests teachers have major difficulties with this  Need to support the design, development and delivery of e-learning (particularly for novice course designers)  eLearning requires a different set of skills from traditional instruction  Role of teachers: “Sages on the stage to guides on the side”  Teachers as “e-moderators” or “e-facilitators” (Salmon, 2000)  Need for design support to enable teachers to improve practice (design toolkits, design patterns, evaluation criteria…)

13. Translating Theory into Practice  Institutes of education largely based on a one-sided conceptualisation of learning.  As a process of ‘acquisition’ of pre-existing knowledge and skills mirroring behaviourist theories.  Pedagogy is more didactic than negotiated, aiming to control rather than facilitate.  Teachers “chalk and talk” online and students become “consumers” of knowledge.  Need to engage with the central questions: what, how and why people learn.  Need to re-examine the traditions, values and practices that prevail in e-learning and in higher education.

14. Conclusions  Challenge now is to “release” the pedagogical potential of learning technologies to address the poverty of pedagogies.  Technology & pedagogy should not be seen as two competing entities.  A symbiotic rather than dualistic relationship between the two needs to be supported.  Need to create a platform to expand the philosophical knowledge base of e-learning from both perspectives.  Need to support and enable teachers to continually improve practice. “We need to rebuild the infrastructure that will enable a fit between the academic values we wish to preserve and the new conditions of education that we wish to promote.” (Laurillard, 2002)