Technology+and+Literacy+in+Networked+Learning

toc

Technology and Literacy in Education

Amity Beane University of Maine, Farmington April 15, 2009

Technology use in schools by teachers and students is increasing and expected. With this comes the need to define literacy through the lens of technology use. This literature review serves to define technology literacy in education. There is a general consensus among the studies that teachers and students are not equal in their technology literacy skills and that the use of technology to meet educational goals requires adequate modeling as well as dedicated support and training of all users. Further study of this topic is essential in order to define and qualify technology literacy among teachers and students.

A current issue in k-12 schools is how to effectively use technology to increase knowledge and meet curricular goals. This is no small challenge, as technology use increases exponentially with greater access to tools and online learning environments such as Virtual High School, Blackboard, and myriad other educational platforms that require online interaction between teachers and learners. There is a strong emphasis to develop "21st Century skills", a concept with varying definitions that ultimately suggest learners need to be able to use technology for purposeful organization and synthesis of information.

Students, teachers, and administrators struggle with themes such as what technology tools work for differing content areas? How can these tools and skills be effectively integrated into current learning environments? What standards exist for work done using computers, the Internet, and multimedia tools? And ultimately, how is learning with technology valued and quantified as a form of literacy? There are no clear answers to these questions, due to the dynamic and ever-changing spectrum of tools available, as well as the differing curricular goals set by each educational institution. Researchers may study the many different facets of technology literacy and still have no concrete solution or answers.

The literature was chosen for this review to examine the multiple ideas connected to technology literacy in schools. Some of the studies deal with what environments exist, both educational and non-academic, that connect teachers and learners. Also addressed are the attitudes or trends that are notable among teachers and learners when using technology. There is also exploration of what standards, assessments, or evaluations are used when evaluating work done using technology.

As a whole, the studies focus on technology tools, and/or platforms, and and/or end results of courses that have been taught using a variety of technology. Most studies agree that teacher training and support are paramount the success of any curriculum in which technology use is expected. Some argue that the new technologies available, are actually detrimental to student learning and achievement. All of the studies offer various definitions of teacher/learner interaction and link these interactions with online uses of technology. There is an underlying theme that being on-line, or connected to Internet-based tools and platforms, as a teacher or learner is part of the issue of technology literacy.

In an attempt to understand fully the complexity of this issue of technology literacy, the articles are intentionally broad in scope in terms of the types of technologies used and the people who used them. One study examines mobile learning as a pedagogical tool in an introductory sociology course by comparing two groups of college students: those who utilized the mobile technology and those who did not (McConatha, Praul, & Lynch, 2008). Another study, which focused on instructor perceptions, explored whether or not faculty and students at a large mid-western university had mastered on-line communications in web-based courses (Gahungu, Dereshiwsky, & Moan, 2006). Learner perspectives were examined in a qualitative study done by Stodel, Thompson, and MacDonald in order to elicit responses as to what was missing from online interactions with instructors (2006). In Sureshramana Mayya's study (2007), teachers' attitudes toward technology were surveyed. Questions were written to elicit teachers' personal beliefs about technology adoption. Erdogan Tezci and others worked with educational faculty at a university in Turkey to identify a scale that can be used by teachers to determine the reliability and validity of creative materials done in project-based learning using technology (2008).

The "TPACK" framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, developed by Mishra and Koehler articulated in their paper //Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge//, describes how teacher's understanding of technologies and and pedagogical content knowledge interact with one another to produce effective teaching with technology (2006). In the //Handbook for Tecnological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators//, Koehler and Mishra argue that the development of TPACK by teachers is critical to teaching with technology (2008). Technology is defined by as "the tools created by human knowledge of how to combine resources to produce desired products, to solve problems, fulfill needs, or satisfy wants" and states that "particular technologies have specific affordances and constraints" (5). Also noted is the idea that teaching with technology "forces teachers to confront basic educational issues and reconstruct the dynamic equilibrium between all three elements" (18).

With the definition of technology in place, the following studies seek to further identify what technologies can be useful to further curricular goals and what technologies can impede curricular goals. The availability of effective teaching materials for online learning is discussed in Huijser and Bull's study (2008). They dissect the marketing behind open source software to determine if it is valid or if there are ulterior motives. Open source software is defined as the process of systematically harnessing open development and decentralized peer review to lower costs and improve software quality. In Huijser's study it was found that in order for open source software to have a real impact on education, there has to be more to it than dumping content into an open course format. Teachers need to be trained and supported in the effective use of free materials.

In The MacArthur Foundation study by Ito, et al., (2008) examines youth practices with technology from a “non-school” framework; i.e., how students spend their personal time on-line and what types of networks they are creating and learning from. The two networks are defined as peer networks and interest networks. The peer networks are larger and can be found on sites such as MySpace or within connected gaming platforms marketed by video game companies. The interest networks are small in number but produce dialog that is a way of constructing knowledge.

The study done by Lina Lee (2002) examines how modern languages can be acquired through synchronous electronic interaction. The study aimed to demonstrate the impact of online, task-based activities that centered around open-ended questions. She found that students benefited from these activities because they had access to different functional skills to construct and negotiate meaning. The impediment of these type of quick, learner-to-learner interaction was that the quality or correctness of the language usage was not examined or revised. However, it can be argued that the goal of communicating in a second language was met by these interactions. This particular studied examined interactions on Blackboard and the results revealed that online interactions empower students in modern language acquisition because of the varying means of negotiating meaning.

In Paul Breen's study of a distance learning project to train teachers in Rwanda, a strong point was made about agenda-free assistance when offering open courseware. An Italian university's offerings to Rwandans was the focus of the study and they made every attempt to remove any monetary or cultural agenda and focus on a pedagogical agenda from the offering of training online. The results showed a focus on 21st century skills such as self-direction and cooperative learning in an environment that strove to give to the trainees what they needed in a training model. The study included in-class training observations as well as online training observations. One of the impediments found to learning was a fear by the participants of making a mistake.

Fear of making mistakes was a recurring theme in the studies,which directly correlates to teacher motivation to acquire the technological proficiency necessary for successful implementation of what are essentially new tools. Teachers face an especially difficult set of circumstances, according to the literature. They can appear unmotivated to change practice if not for a good reason. They can be unsure of the best way to assess learning in the networked environment. In some cases there is a lack of funding for the tools necessary for the networked learning environment. District policies are often written to discourage networking in schools. Administrators, unaware of how students are acquiring knowledge on a network, do not always support the development of integrated curricula. Teachers can also find it difficult to give up control of a typical instructionist approach. Last, but not least, teachers can be behind the curve in terms of the tools available and how students can use them to leverage the opportunities to produce new knowledge.

How do educators quantify and assess learning in an online learning environment? The concept of knowledge acquisition by a networked learner can be further developed by creating a taxonomy. The key words of networked learning include creation, collaboration, communication and reaction (Jonassen, 2000). The online learner participates in a dynamic process, one in which knowledge is constantly being created and revised. Within the learner profile detailed above, a student creates, collaborates, communicates, processes, and reacts. Therefore an educator/assessor must examine and evaluate the creation, collaboration, communication, process, and reaction of the learner. There is no current model in k-12 education to assess networked learning, but there do exist models to assess the key verbs related to the connected learner. In summary, the literature suggests teachers are still coming to terms with the best ways to integrate technology and facilitate online interactions. There is a need for training and support as new programs and platforms are implemented in schools. Some content areas are better equipped to "marry" technology to curricular goals due to the results of integration within the content area, such as modern language learners using online platforms to negotiate meaning. There is a wide range of uses of technology within the studies, with a general goal being to identify what works in teacher training and school integration and what does not. There seems to be less information available about how students use technology to learn informally, perhaps because this may imply that an instructor is not necessary.

There is a general agreement that online courses, distance learning, digital media and creation of digital artifacts are the ways of the future. The remaining questions are still: what tools work best for what purpose and how can teachers assess and qualify this type of work? What is the best way to integrate technology and train teachers and learners alike to use it in an appropriate manner?

What issues are inherent to the networked learning environment? There are many. One can assume that because of the traditional methods of delivering curriculum are so well-entrenched in educational practice, that the newness of having 24-hour accessibility to information, peers, experts, and multiple tools (not limited to a textbook or classroom tools) poses many issues in schools. Indeed, the issues include but are not limited to: network blocks in school, limited access out of school, and teachers who clearly face multiple issues when establishing a networked environment.

Network blocks in school stymie teachers and students who are connected on networks. Many students and teachers come to the building with high levels of connectedness already in process. While they may not be connected to each other on non-school networks, the potential to connect on multiple platforms is squashed by network blocks. There is great fear of inappropriate connections between students and teachers in non-school networks such as Facebook, generally because teachers are expected to model good behavior in school and out-of-school networks may contain content that is not appropriate for students to see. Like students, there exist teachers who are part of large gaming networks, social networks, and school networks such as wikis and blogs. Students and teachers also belong to sites such as DeviantArt and Flickr, which are large databases of art and photography (provided by registered users) coupled with social networking functions such as commenting and threaded discussions. These are interest-based networks (Ito, et al.), or networks which are defined by common interests within the community. When a school blocks certain networks, the implication is that the users cannot be trusted to make good decisions. Accessibility is almost taken for granted in the digital age and someone who does not have access to on-line networks is seen as having a disadvantage. Certainly students feel disadvantaged when their networks are blocked at school. The access to peers and experts becomes limited by what the school mandates as acceptable practice.

In some areas of the US, internet access is limited by lack of infrastructure. This is being addressed as digital infrastructure develops with federal funding. Technologies such as Tandberg equipment, essentially a networked, audiovisual box that connects classrooms, are new examples of state attempts to connect learners in rural areas. Another limit of access comes from federal law dictating that E-rate discounts for technology in schools only apply if site blockers are employed. This federal mandate essentially limits access to networks at school such as Youtube and Facebook. In lieu of teaching digital literacy, the approach seems to be to pretend the networks do not exist. This affects the connected learner: Networked learning as defined above flourishes with access, and limiting access limits knowledge production, self-reflection, peer and expert-review and ultimately shared knowledge.

Another article examining teacher attitudes toward technology by Gahungu, Dere. sought to measure mastery of the relatively new framework of teaching and learning on-line in a networked environment. The focus of the study was instructor perceptions regarding issues of civility in the on-line instructional communication environment, or what is known as “netiquette”. The population was a group of faculty from Chicago State University who taught web-based, asynchronous courses. The study found that on-line education so far has failed to create learning communities that meet the definition of a networked learning environment. The idea that both content and technology as directed by the teacher fails to harness the power of the network suggests that more training is necessary for teachers to understand their role in a networked learning environment. While there were several encouraging trends in this study, such as easier communication between teachers and learners, easier management of assignments, team building among faculty, and improved instruction, shortfalls were still apparent. The major shortfalls of the on-line model included computer illiteracy, the need for tutorials, lack of teacher orientation to methodologies, and student orientation to “netiquette” or digital citizenship. It is useful to note that there is not the same stigma attached to student/teacher on-line relationships when the student is in college.

The MacArthur Foundation study by Ito et al. examines youth practices with technology from a “non-school” framework; i.e., how students spend their personal time on-line and what types of networks they are creating and learning from. The two networks are defined as peer networks and interest networks. The peer networks are larger and can be found on sites such as MySpace or within connected gaming platforms marketed by video game companies. The interest networks are small in number but produce dialog that is a way of constructing knowledge.

The issue with teachers and students and the gap in proficiency is that teachers have little understanding of the interest networks that students are engaged in and some consider them invalid. This has slowed the growth of effective integration of technology in schools, because as stated earlier, within these networks there is a hierarchy which the student can move along, ultimately becoming an expert himself in his area of interest. To refuse to validate this creates tension between teacher and student.

The article by McConatha et al., examines connectivism between teacher and student via mobile learning. The study was driven by the pervasive use of mobile devices and their networks and was conducted at a mid-sized university in the Northeast United States. The study analyzed the effectiveness of a particular software in delivering content via mobile device periodically prior to a major exam. On average, the mobile learners scored 5 points higher on the assessment. While further studies of this type would increase the validity of the data, it does show that networking between teacher and student produces greater expertise.

Another issue to consider is the availability of effective teaching materials for connectivist learning. Huijser et al. dissect the marketing behind open source software to determine if it is valid or if there are ulterior motives. Open source software is defined as “the process of systematically harnessing open development and decentralized peer review to lower costs and improve software quality.” In Huijser's study it was found that in order for open source software to have a real impact on education, there has to be more to it than dumping content into an open course format. In a connectivist environment, such software would need to be dynamic and fluctuating, and driven by the nodes on the network as opposed to having right and wrong answers.

How are teachers supposed to allow networking to develop? The article by Mueller & Fleming examined children in groups with a democratic leader. Each group was given a task and the teacher served as a facilitator as opposed to a lecturer. It was found that while each group functioned differently, all groups completed the task successfully and collaboratively. Findings revealed that when working in groups, children require periods of unstructured time to organize themselves and to learn how to work together toward a mutual goal. This suggests a change in role of the teacher within the connectivist environment: one of facilitator and guide that allows children to problem solve in groups.

To see further develop networked learning in school, it must be contextualized with the use of technology tools. The most relevant technology tools that use the key verbs of a netoworked learner are known as mindtools (Jonassen, 2000). These include semantic networks, microworlds, mapping software, simulations, databases and spreadsheets. Mindtools rely heavily on solving problems by manipulating data in simulated environments. Mindtools are used to connect ideas, identify patterns, and understand and organize the flow of information. When learners use mindtools to solve problems collaboratively, they are enhancing the connectivist environment by acquiring expertise. When experience is acquired, so is knowledge. When access is available to learners, this is an example of conectivism.

In a paper written by Kop and Hill (2008) connectivism was compared with other learning theories and analyzed for relevance. They stress that implementation by teachers of connectivist theory must be integrated with other theories, else it be “insufficient or misguided.” They assert that more applied educational research is needed of connectivism, and that it is not yet a theory, although it does play an important role in changing pedagogies in which the teacher is no longer central. Kop and Hill share Siemens' alignment of Downes' (2006) theory of distributed knowledge to connectivism, where he says “...the concept of emergent, connected, and adaptive knowledge provides the epistemological framework for connectivism as a learning theory.” To directly challenge this is a criticism provided by Kerr (2007) in which he asks connectivism to explain “transferring understanding, making understanding, and building understanding” as well as the processes that lead to “deep thinking and creating understanding.”

Another drawback to connectivism is that it is not highly valued in educational settings yet due to the slow rate of institutional change as well as federal mandates such a No Child Left Behind. Teaching to a test as opposed to teaching skill sets to solve problems has been de rigeur for several years. Teachers are slow to embrace the collaborative and creative learning that is inherent in a networked learning environment because it takes away from the time needed to prepare students for standardized tests. Also, as Siemens (2000a) asserts, learning in a connectivist environment is no longer internal and individualistic. This is difficult to embrace in a system that rewards individual achievement. Previous research and findings

The strongest evidence to promote networked learning in school is undoubtedly found in the book, Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, (2008, various). This model integrates technology into the framework of teaching and learning and unpacks the networked learning environment and how it can work in school. TPCK is defined as four domains that must be accessed when teaching with technology, and their interaction with each other. When effectively used together, the four domains are prototypical of a networked learning experience. Teachers who are proficient in TPCK have understanding of technology, pedagogy, content, and knowledge. They are in command of the tools, the methods, the subject, and the big ideas. It is this model that seems most promising for teachers who wish to implement a networked learning environment. The book provides examples in each content area of what TPCK means in that area and how it can be integrated.

One of the most powerful ideas in the TPCK book is that teaching and learning are wicked problems, or problems that are not neat and simple but messy and in need of customized solutions. It is this idea, that knowledge is not an easy goal with pre-determined steps but difficult to achieve without trying out multiple ideas, that contributes the most the power of the networked learning environment.

There simply is not enough data on networked learners, teachers, and a networked environment to make any definitive statements as to its viability to meet curricular goals. Teachers “in the trenches” share their anecdotes via the word wide web and tend to encourage other teachers who are trying to create a networked learning environment, but because the concept is new, it suffers from a lack of field-research. While technology is known to be on the forefront of what is new in schools, there is a lack of data as to how it is being used in a networked way.

Learners today use technology more than ever before. Students are connected, or networked, in and out of school on a variety of devices, such as smart phones, internet-ready personal devices, and computers. There is a diversity of platforms that students use which range from educational platforms such as wikis, nings or blogs for school work, and non-educational sites such social networks like Facebook or MySpace, gaming networks, and friend networks that are constructed by the student. (Note that a platform is different from a program: a platform is web-based and can be accessed on any device, whereas a program usually lives on the user's personal device.) It is evident that merely the use of technology does not make a better learning environment, nor does the use of technology increase knowledge. Technology tools can be used to produce new knowledge but use of technology by itself does not make a person more knowledgeable. On important avenue for further inquiry is motivation. Understanding why students are motivated to use networks to create knowledge is essential to tapping into their powers as instructional tools.

Priscilla Theroux addresses motivation in her article entitled Enhancing Learning With Technology. She asserts the teacher's role has changed from an emphasis on instructional techniques to learning techniques. Knowing that this is difficult for teachers to change after so many years of a traditional “master” role, she provides several techniques to increase motivation. While this does not directly relate to connectivism as a learning theory, it is essential to address motivation (of both teacher and learner) when talking about a connectivist learning environment. The skills acquired while traversing and evaluating a network helps learners to value themselves and their own decision-making ability. When traversing a network, the teacher as guide allows the student to move from node to node to acquire knowledge and does not force a pre-determined course. One of Theroux's most interesting points is to provide a secure environment where learners may fail without penalty. This allows learning to be created and then changed to reflect new information and ideas. Another tip is to teach organization, which ties directly with connectivism. Networked learning takes on a unique organization by the learner. Finally, something of great value in the Theroux article is the idea that learners need to develop persistence and tolerance for frustration. Learners develop self-concept through struggle. In the context of connectivism, it is important to remember that building networks takes time, trial, and error.

Certain attitudes are revealed that show that some teachers are not receiving adequate training in technology, as noted in the study done by Sureshramana (2007). This is essential to consider when trying to understand motivation. Traditional methods of delivering curriculum are no longer engaging youth who have access to a learning network. Sureshrmana found that an element of compulsion on the part of school administrators would motivate teachers to become more technologically proficient. One respondent in the study stated that it was less work to maintain the status quo than to learn new ways of doing things. This attitude suggests that learners do not motivate teachers, but rather the conditions of work.

To summarize the literature, there is not much evidence to suggest that teachers are applying a connectivist model to learners or the learning environment in school. While some attempts have been made to create rubrics to assess creativity, the basic processes that define a connectivist learner need to be further investigated to properly assess the work done in a networked environment. Teachers are rooted in more traditional roles and struggle with the rapid rate of change in the tools and the networks that are available and widely used by learners. Learners who are networked are seen as wasting time with some of the networks they belong to. Especially difficult to establish in schools is the idea that learners and teachers are equal partners in terms of creating networks, establishing expertise, and creating new knowledge. In conclusion, the area of connectivism that seems most powerful is how knowledge is organized. Organizational actions on the network such as tagging (identifying ideas) and wikitexting (organizing data hierarchically) provide semantic organization and identifies relationships. These are powerful cognitive skills that are applicable across the disciplines. It is this potential literacy of transferable skills that prompts the question: how can connectivism and the power of networks be exploited in traditional educational settings? How can teachers shift their roles from all-powerful purveyors of knowledge to guides? And finally, how can connectivism be presented in a pedagogical model that makes sense to qualify the work done in school?