Using reflective diagrams in professional development with university lecturers: A developmental tool in online teaching

  • Published on
    04-Sep-2016

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Transcript

technologies for teaching and learning (Bell, Bush, Nicholson, O'Brien, & Tran, 2002). Nelson (2005), in Ouruniversities: Backing Australia's future minister's message focused on the vision on engaging universities inInternet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 1331451. IntroductionThere is a growing adoption of online technologies by academic staff for blended, distance, and flexible learningaround the world in response to the growing number of students enrolling for online classes and programs. Allen andSeaman (2004) revealed the rapid introduction of online teaching into higher education in the USA in which 1100colleges and universities responded to their study. According to their survey over 1.9 million students were studyingonline in 2003, and the expectation is that online enrolment would continue to rise at an average rate of almost 25% in2004 to reach over 2.6 million students learning online.A 2001 Australian survey into online courses commissioned by the Department of Education, Science and Training(DEST) suggested that there had been considerable activities within the universities in relation to the use of InternetAbstractThe use of online technology within universities is increasing. However, this expansion is not accompanied by an associatedincrease in investment in lecturers' pedagogical knowledge to assist them in the transition. The major challenge now is toencourage the use of pedagogically sound technologies. At present, lecturers often lack the tools to describe the journey that theytake when embarking to teach online. This paper focuses on the journey undertaken by a group of lecturers at a Western Australianuniversity as they explored the relationship between their pedagogy and technology in a 1-year research project in which theyengaged in monthly professional development workshops. At the concluding workshop the lecturers drew diagrams in order to addvisual representations to their reflection process. The diagram, therefore, can be used as a diagnostic tool to identify lecturers'positions in relation to their pedagogy and use of technology and as a developmental tool to show their journey towards a moreintegrated approach in their online teaching. 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords: Professional development; University lecturers; Innovative pedagogies; Community of learners; Reflective diagramsUsing reflective diagrams in professional development withuniversity lecturers: A developmental tool in online teachingDorit Maor Murdoch University, School of Education, South Street, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, AustraliaAccepted 7 March 2006 Tel.: +61 8 9360 7257; fax: +61 8 9360 6280.E-mail address: dmaor@murdoch.edu.au.1096-7516/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.005instructional objectives and to use the appropriate strategies (Diamond, 1989), most instructors struggle with thepedagogical aspects. Many teachers in higher education feel themselves pressured to use ICT to support studentlearning, and express concern that these developments are proceeding more rapidly than educational research mightjustify, and without access to adequate or appropriate support or development opportunities (Shephard, 2004, p. 70).Furthermore, some higher education academics are reluctant to integrate online teaching into their pedagogy and someeven completely reject online teaching.During 2002, as part of her ongoing research, the author designed and implemented a series of professionaldevelopment workshops to assist lecturers with the use of pedagogically sound technology. Ten lecturers were selectedto participate in the workshops, each having diverse experience with e-learning. In 2003, the concluding workshopinvolved a reflective exercise in which four of these lecturers were available to draw diagrams that were intended toprovide visual representation of changes in the way they perceived, used, and improved their teaching with newtechnologies during this 1-year research study. These representations resulted in one group diagram, summarizing thepedagogy and technology continua. In 2005 two of the previous participants were asked to reflect on this diagram infollow-up interviews. This paper presents the results from their interpretation of the visual diagrams and a discussion ofthe perception of the influence of online teaching in higher education.1.1. Pedagogical innovation and related technologyIn spite of the trend towards online teaching, many faculty members are not yet using this technology to a greatextent and, if they are, they are unsure about how to use it effectively (Conrad, 2002). One way to solve this issue is byoffering professional programs, which will emphasize the development of innovative pedagogy and the use oftechnology to match the instructional goals. However, many programs in higher education institutions tend to attractthe early adopters who are already using technology in their teaching (Bonk, Kirkley, Hara, & Dennen, 2001). Hagnerand Schneebeck (2001) described how faculty members view the new technologies. The first wave of teachersrepresent the entrepreneurs who are risk takers in teaching and learning; the second wave represent the risk aversiveswho need more instructional support to make the transformation; the third wave are the reward seekers; and the fourthwave are the reluctants. Another problem is that this type of program tends to teach the use of technology withoutintegrating pedagogical considerations. In an earlier report it was stated:Much attention has been given to the delivery of online material, but not enough has been given to the issue of theneed to change our conceptual framework and pedagogies to take advantage of the new technology (Maor, 2004,p. 214).Bonk, Wisher, and Nigrelli (2004, p. 205) also stated that scant research exists on the technological and pedagogicalvariables necessary to foster a virtual community:Instead of engaging learners in rich and intensive interaction and collaboration, most e-learning environmentsconcentrated on individualized, self-paced learning using tools for uploading and downloading of content, websearching, online quizzing and testing, grading, and tracking learner progress.One of the unresolved issues in digital education, according to Reeves (2003), is the dominance of traditionalteaching and the unlikelihood of academic staff to adopt pedagogical innovation, such as authentic activities with web-based interactive learning environments. Cuban (2001) suggests that, in spite of the significant penetration of newtechnologies to the education system, the majority of faculty is still engaged with traditional ways of teaching withoutis critical to their long-term strategy and success and three-quarters of all academic leaders believe that onlinelearning quality will be equal to or superior to face-to-face instruction in three years. In spite of this, the questionis whether academics are prepared for the new demand and whether they can create and maintain the quality ofonline learning.The phenomenon of growing use of online teaching suggests that online technology is something that mostacademic staff must confront today. Although the optimal approach to e-learning is to match the pedagogy with theintroducing reforms in diverse areas including research and cross-sectoral collaboration and quality in teaching andlearning.According to Allen and Seaman's (2004, p. 3) US report, the majority of schools also state that online education134 D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145taking advantage of the institutions' investment in technologies.For this study, a community of learners was created (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Hendriks and Maor, 2004) amongthe group of educators and they were introduced to social constructivist pedagogy (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996;O'Connor, 1998; Tobin, 1993; Von Glaserfeld, 1990) in face-to-face workshops. In the same way as Garrison andAnderson (2003, p. 6) suggested that the value of e-learning is not in its faster access to information, but in its capacityto facilitate communication and thinking and thereby construct meaning and knowledge, a series of authentic activitieswere introduced during the workshops, such as solving and sharing problems, reflecting and collaborating, andadopting new technologies. These presented opportunities for the creation of a community of learners and for the groupof lecturers to experience social constructivist pedagogy. When Rovai and Jordan (2004) examined the relationship ofsense of community between the traditional classroom, blended, and fully online higher education learningenvironments, they found that blended courses produced a stronger sense of community among students than eithertraditional or fully online courses. This blended approach of face-to-face and online discussions was implementedduring the professional development program to support the sense of the community. In addition, the support providedby members of the community for technical and pedagogical issues allowed for greater learning to occur (Wenger,1998). The environment that was created during the professional development workshops was one in which peoplecould discuss authentic problems with others in the group who had different expectations and levels of understanding(Ackermann, 1995).2. Professional development: data collectionA growing number of courses are offered online at the author's university and a technical centralized support isavailable for educators. However, there is no form to guide and support them in their journey towards online teaching.Thus, a combination of research and professional development goals were served by this study.The research project had these four goals: To recruit lecturers from different disciplines across the campus to increase interdisciplinary collaboration (Amey &Brown, 2004) To recruit lecturers who have diverse e-learning experience To investigate the changes that the online lecturers experienced during the professional development program To apply the result of this study to present and future research.The professional development had these five goals: To introduce the lecturers to social constructivist pedagogy as major pedagogy for teaching To support lecturers with technical advice when using online teaching To help teachers conduct action research in their respective classrooms as part of the research agenda To create a community of learners among the participants To conduct online discussion in order to solve on going problems and dilemmas for the online lecturers in thecommunity.The ten lecturers who volunteered to the project represented Environmental Studies, Veterinary Science, Education,Information Technology, Law, and Humanities. Some of the lecturers were already engaged in online teaching; somewere planning to teach online; and one was reluctant to teach online but wanted to take part in the professionaldevelopment workshops for his own benefit.The workshops took place during the academic year of 2002 when a monthly meeting was conducted to discuss anydifficulties related to pedagogical innovation and technology aspects of online learning. The presentations anddiscussions in the workshops included the principles of social constructivism, online learning and technology,collaborative learning, reflective discourse, Web-CT tools, online assessment and action research methodology. Themajor pedagogical issues explored were participation, collaboration, interactivity and the role of the lecturer in theonline environment (Maor, 2003; Maor & Zariski, 2003). A website for the project was built and occasional onlinediscussions were conducted.The professional development took two forms: firstly, it used an experiential model of the teacher-as-a-learner in a135D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145face-to-face or online interaction to create a community of learners (Lave & Wenger, 1991); and secondly, the teacher-as-a-researcher was promoted by including action research in their teaching settings and thus creating a community ofpractitioners (Wenger, 1998). Thus, this research project moved away from traditional professional developmentprescriptive approaches that tell how to improve practice (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Palloff & Pratt,2003; Salmon, 2000) to a more reflective approach that required the participants to question the way they usedtechnology.Based on the previous stage of this research (Maor, 2004), a number of interesting categories (described in the nextsection) were created that illustrated the way these interdisciplinary educators approached online teaching. To furtherexplore these categories, a final workshop was designed to elicit the lecturers' ideas on their use and understanding oftechnology and pedagogy by asking them to draw visual representations (diagrams) to express their views. In 2005,follow-up interviews were conducted to explain and discuss the visual representations by academic staff whoparticipated in the original study.2.1. Results: categories of pedagogy and technologyData collected from the pre-workshop questionnaires revealed that the lecturers who participated in the finalworkshop had teaching experience ranging from 6 to 30 years. However, specifically in terms of online teaching, thelength of experience ranged between 0 and 6 years. At the time of the project, two lecturers were using aspects of onlinetechnology as part of their teaching, in particular, email, asynchronized discussions and online study materials. The ITlecturer reported also using synchronized discussions.When asked how they perceived their use of online technology, two lecturers reported using it to complementtheir face-to-face teaching, one lecturer expressed that she used the technology as an addition to a distancelearning unit, and one lecturer reported using online technology for both these purposes. Further examination ofthe lecturers' reasons for using online technologies indicated a number of explanations, including enhancing thebreadth and availability of study material, less paper flow, encouraging discussion for students especiallythose in external study modes, allowing for flexibility in learning for students and teachers, and enhancingcollaboration.The lecturers who participated in this project demonstrated five approaches to innovative teaching with newtechnologies. These approaches were discussed in an earlier publication (Maor, 2004). The analysis of the lecturers'approaches created the following categories and these will be discussed through the individual case studies:1. Those using a constructivist approach in their face-to-face teaching but do not implement it online, because theylack the technological knowledge and therefore do not use technology for pedagogical purposes (case study one).2. Those using the technology but do not extend their pedagogies to take advantage of the interactive potential of thetechnology (case study two).3. Those remaining skeptical about the use of technology as a teaching tool (case study three).4. Those enthusiastically adopting technology to match their constructivist approach to teaching (case study four).Another category evolved of those using the technology and the pedagogy in moderation because of onlymoderate familiarity with the online technology or lack of familiarity with online pedagogies.This paper describes case studies of four participants to represent four different approaches that are illustrated inFigs. 14. These lecturers, two males and two females, were from the disciplines of, education, informationtechnology, environmental science, and law.3. Reflective diagrams: making meaning through visualizationAs part of the qualitative way of representing their own growth, four of the original lecturers were asked to draw avisual representation (diagram) to express their own perceptions regarding their use and understanding of pedagogyrelated to technology. This activity allowed a comparison of their perceptions with the categories that had beenestablished earlier in the study. This reflective exercise was initiated by drawing two vertical lines, based on the groupsuggestions (see Fig. 1): one representing pedagogy (the level of social constructivist approach) and the othertechnology (competency and understanding of the technology). Each vertical line is a continuum from low to high136 D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145levels of use and understanding. No further instructions were given except for asking the participants to explain thediagram while they were drawing it. Each diagram, therefore, demonstrates a lecturer's position in relation to pedagogyand technology, the connection he/she sees between them, and the changes experienced during the research project.While these diagrams represent the views of the lecturers in a specific time, they should not be considered final or static,but they provide excellent qualitative data and together with the follow-up interviews enable triangulation with thecategories established earlier in the study. The individual representations culminated in a single group diagraminitiated by one of the lecturers, but drawn by the researcher (see Fig. 6) to summarize the ideas that were expressedduring the final workshop.3.1. Follow-up interviewsThe follow-up interviews included two of the original participants. The objective of these interviews was toinvestigate the efficacy of the group diagram as a benchmark for the enhanced integration of pedagogy and technologyin e-learning environments in universities. The participants were asked about their current use and understanding ofpedagogy and technology, the impetus and rationale for their use of the technology, and the social constructivistpedagogy they used online. The two participants were asked to review their original diagrams and were then shown theconstructed group diagram and asked to articulate their interpretation of it based upon their experiences in the last18 months.4. Diagrams analysis: from attempting integration to dynamic integrationUse & Understanding Use & Understanding Technology Pedagogy Low Low High High A framework for a reflective diagramFig. 1. A framework for a reflective diagram.137D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 1331454.1. Case study one: approaching integrationKaren, an education lecturer, teaches only external, postgraduate level units and she uses online tools because Iwant (my students) to interact with each other. This emanates from her belief that interaction with other people bydiscussing the issues is an important way to learn (Karen, 2003), a comment that supports her social constructivistapproach and her preference for face-to-face contact with students. She feels more confident in her pedagogical abilitythan technological competency. With one of her units, she intends to try asynchronous and then synchronousdiscussion, but she acknowledged that the students are all feeling their way a little bit with this although they all wantto learn how to do it. In the past Karen tried teleconferencing but only half of the external students were remotelyinterested.When Karen started to draw the diagram (Fig. 2), she identified the gap between her understanding and use inrelation to both issues. Therefore, she drew separate lines and points representing use and understanding of pedagogyand technology.Karen's diagram (Fig. 2) shows that she perceived an increase in her understanding of both pedagogy andtechnology during the one-year project. She situated herself in a high position initially on the pedagogy-axis (KN1) torepresent her understanding of pedagogy, which improved to the level of KN2 during the project. The diagram alsodemonstrates an improvement in her understanding of technology (KN1 to KN2), which is indicated on the lower endof the right vertical line.The two approaching curves between the continua signified her attempt to integrate the two. The second set ofdotted lines in the centre describes her perceived future possibilities in her use of pedagogy and technology. Theyindicate that she expected to improve her understanding of both pedagogical ability and use of new technology andthat the two would be more closely integrated. The label of the diagram, Approaching Integration, reflects thistendency.In the final workshop, Karen stated that she had changed very little on either, but my understanding of the two hasgreatly increased. She reiterated that her participation had helped her think about her assumptions of socialconstructivism and really get a handle on those reasons again and apply [them] to online. She further emphasized thevalue of the group: It is good to know you are not the only one struggling with some of this stuff because you know itcan be a very isolating experience. Trying to collaborate and the support is quite an important part of it (FinalWorkshop, 2003).In the follow-up interview, in 2005, as indicated by the bolded black lines in the centre of the diagram (Fig. 2,KN05), Karen's understanding of pedagogy has altered little but her understanding of online technologies increasedeven further than during the initial study. She suggested, My understanding of technology reached a higher level. Ibegan to see its possibilities much better (Karen interview, 2005). In regard to the use of technology, Karen states,Understanding Understanding KN2 KN1 Low Low Fig. 2. Approaching integration.Technology Pedagogy KN2KN1 High High KN05KN05KN05Approaching Integration138 D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145I would say the use [of technology] is coming together but my difficulties are still in that I have used thetechnologies and have reconciled the pedagogy, but what I can't work out still is how to improve the students'participation in it how to engage them better with the technology. That, I still think is the problem. Karenadded,Part of the pedagogy is engaging students but there is another layer that we have to attend to somehow which hasto do with the students' own understanding of technology and their desire to want to use technology to assist theirown learning. The students are not necessarily ready or able to engage in a way that might be useful for them.(Interview, March, 2005)As anticipated by Karen, the integration of the two continua was further enhanced in 2005, indicated by theunbroken lines between the two continua. She emphasized that the discussion during the professional developmentenabled her to think how to structure things better for the students and how to get students engaged in online learning.She also spent a lot of time learning Web-CT. I have been to a lot of courses on Web-CT at the university SupportCentre, which I have enjoyed, sometimes twice, because I go and try to do it and then have gone back once I haveknown what the difficulties were. Then I have been looking to solve my difficulties. This demonstrates a betterunderstanding of her needs as an online lecturer and her need to be selective in learning the technology. Karen initiallyrepresented Category 1, however, because of her growing interest she moved towards Category 4 in her attempt to usepedagogically sound technology.4.2. Case study two: from separate continua to integrationGeorgia, an IT lecturer, suggested in her reflective exercise that she was already very familiar with technologicalaspects of online teaching, but participation in the project helped to motivate her to continue her improvement, as sheelaborated, It helped me to keep on track and keep on target. Feedback and discussions helped clarify my thoughts.She believed, Technology can isolate rather than bring people together unless social constructivist pedagogy is used(Workshop, March, 2003). She used collaborative tools for student assignments and also peer-assessment as part of herconstructivist pedagogy, promoting collaborative learning.In the original study, the diagram depicted in Fig. 3 shows four points on the pedagogy axis referring to theGeorgia's increase in level of use (GT1 and GT2) and understanding (GT1 and GT2) of social constructivistpedagogy. A similar illustration exists on the technology axis. However, there was no attempt by her to illustrate therelationship between pedagogy and technology in this diagram, hence its label separate continua. She believed heruse of both was higher than her understanding initially, but she reported that as a result of the discussion, she was usingboth with more understanding.In the follow-up interview in 2005, Georgia indicated a marginally improved position in terms of herpedagogical ability and use of collaborative tools (Fig. 3, GT05). She stated that she used ilectures (web-cast) nowthat she had not used during the 1-year project and she tried to incorporate social constructivism in everything thatI do. The result is that what she does now is to have the unit presented more clearly on Web-CT, what the unit'saims are, the outcomes, the concepts and all of that. This is done in addition to face-to-face contacts with the139D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145students. Her tutorials are also online so the students are experiencing rich resources of online materials: readings,worksheets, assignments, bulletin board mail and announcements. In addition, they use peer assessment. Sheadmitted that the technology for her came before the pedagogy and she only realized in the last 34 years that Itdoes need that proper framework to make it pedagogically sound (Interview, March, 2005). Georgia who initiallyrepresented category 2 had an exceptional shift in her attitude towards her online teaching, moving from category 2to 4. The follow-up results suggest that she clearly reduced the gap between pedagogy and technology byintroducing collaborative tools in her teaching.4.3. Case study three: slight move towards integration (use)Carl, a lecturer in environmental science, presented himself as the skeptical person and he strongly felt that he hadnot implemented a constructivist approach to his teaching and as a scientist was not familiar with this theory ofUse Understanding Understanding GT1 Technology Pedagogy *GT2 GT1 *GT1 GT2 Use *GT1 GT2 Low Low High High GT05GT05 Separate Continua *GT2 Fig. 3. Separate continua.teaching. He strongly believed in face-to-face teaching although he did not see a great future in teaching with e-learning: We have a lot of technology. We can do a lot but the chances of teaching with it are small.Fig. 4 illustrates slow changes in the use of pedagogy and technology. Specifically the diagram indicated a moderateincrease in Carl's use (CR1 and CR2) and a greater increase in the understanding of pedagogy, and a major increasein the use (CR1 and CR2) and understanding of technology. There is a movement towards integration (see label) ofunderstanding of the two continua, illustrated by the curved lines between the axes.He appreciated the opportunity to work within a group of colleagues and saw the workshops as opening him up tonew ideas and shifting his understanding (Final Workshop, 2003). Carl represents category 3, who started the projectwith skepticism and by the end had moved these two continua only slightly closer, maintaining an attitude that kept thetwo continua apart.4.4. Case study four: dynamic integrationBob, a law lecturer, had a high level of integration of the new technology in his constructivist way ofteaching. In combining the two, Bob was an exemplary lecturer who saw that the project increased my use andapplication of social constructivism. I moderately decreased my use of technology. I was high to begin with but Iwent back to the pedagogical principles and made sure that they were not lost in the online learning (FinalWorkshop, 2003). On reflection, he said, Technology presents certain opportunities and possibilities; it's acommunication tool publicly or privately so even if you don't know it, the technology suggests something140 D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145that actually ties it into constructivism. He saw his role as trying to encourage discussion among students andparticipation. As part of a law unit, he used online discussions, role-plays, and simulations to engage students inauthentic activities aimed at teaching dispute resolution. He suggested a dynamic continuum of technology andpedagogy people coming from either side, developing a dialogue, melding the continua (Final Workshop,2003).The diagram depicted in Fig. 5 represents a very dynamic illustration of Bob's views. He did not differentiatebetween the use and understanding of either pedagogy or technology, using one curved line for each. These curvedlines came closer together and the interchange between them was illustrated by a new line that binds the two together.The arrows, BA2 and BA2 suggested an attempt to integrate the two components.His understanding of pedagogy was enhanced during the project, thus enabling him to gain a more discerningapproach to the use of technology. Bob's diagram had the biggest impact on the final group diagram which he initiated.Thus his drawing was instrumental in the shape of the final group diagram (see Fig. 6). He represented category 4 of anUse Understanding Understanding CR2 CR1 Technology Pedagogy CR2 *CR1 Use *CR2 CR1 Low Low High High Movement Towards Integration Fig. 4. Slight move towards integration.early adopter who enthusiastically began using the technology in a meaningful way to facilitate his instructional goalsand his students' needs.5. Group diagram integration of pedagogy and technology: fact or fiction?During the process of constructing self-reflecting diagrams the lecturers discussed the idea of the creation of aculminating group diagram to demonstrate the key elements experienced by this community. The diagram was drawnBA2 BA2 BA1 BA1 Low High HighLow Technology Pedagogy Dynamic Integration Fig. 5. Dynamic integration.141D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145by the researcher, integrating elements of meaning constructed by the lecturers during the process of drawing the visualrepresentations. However, since there was no way to merge all the individual visual representations, Bob's visualrepresentation (Fig. 5) had the greatest influence on the formation of the final group diagram. In addition, there weredifferent interpretations as well as criticisms and objections from the participants that shaped the final format of thegroup diagram. The left Y-axis describes the types of pedagogies (role play, negotiation of meaning, reflective practice,collaboration, interpersonal relationship) that the participants were engaged in through the workshop; the right Y-axisdescribes the online computer technologies (web-cast, asynchronous discussion, synchronous discussion, onlineproject work, email) that were demonstrated and discussed during the research and used by some of the participants intheir teaching. The centre of the diagram illustrates the ideal situation: the integrating the two continua in which theprocess of collaboration, affective support, discussion and group work through the online technologies takes place tocreate community of learners.Fig. 6 demonstrates hypothetically, how two different types of online lecturers changed through the process. Forexample: A lecturer, who at the beginning of the study (Position A) was implementing a constructivist pedagogy in theirteaching but did not know how to integrate it with technology; A lecturer, who at the beginning of the study (Position B) was utilizing the technology, but used it without anypedagogical considerations.Other lecturers started at different levels of competencies of using technology and pedagogy. As the workshopsprogressed, the data suggested that users moved along the curve in Fig. 6 towards the centre, at which point usersintegrated their knowledge of pedagogy and technology. The central circle demonstrates the relationship between thetwo components underpinned by a strong community of learners who engaged in relationship building, dialogue andIndividual Inquiry Collaboration, interpersonal relationship Reflective Practice Negotiation of Meaning Role-play Community of Learners Collaboration Affective support Discussion Group work Role-play Web-cast On-line Project work Synchronous Discussion Asynchronous Discussion Email Integration Position A Position B Online Computer Technologies Pedagogies Group Diagram: Integration of Pedagogy and Technology 142 D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145interaction that assisted them in authentic problem solving. This connection created a dynamic environment, which hasbeen represented on the group diagram by the two curves joining to illustrate an optimum way of teaching online.The curved lines in the center represent new learning approaches promoted during the year's research. The shape ofthe curve is because when new learning was acquired, the lecturer tended to get over-excited and adopted the newtechnology. For example, when using the online teaching, a couple of participants used email, discussion forums,online readings, web resources, podcast, making the technology determine the learning. After the initial adoption andgreater use of the technology, came the reflective process in which the lecturer examined his/her pedagogy in light ofthe instructional objectives and then made an attempt to use the technology only where and when appropriate. The ITlecturer further suggested that Position A's curve actually represented some of the people at the university who triedWeb-CTand did not adopt it because it was not an intuitive tool. Therefore, there appears to be a regression in the use oftechnology.The similar process of regression happened with lecturers who implemented a constructivist approach to teachingand later adopted the technology. For example, in the follow-up interview with Karen, she was aware of her increaseduse of technology because she participated in a number of Web-CT courses and currently uses audio streaming.However, she claimed, My technology knowledge had to grow a lot before I could use the pedagogical knowledge thatI had. Now she is concerned that by her audio streaming it represents a regression in her pedagogy because, I found Iwas teaching much more in a transmission mode than I had previously done, which I wasn't happy about and so I thinkthere are tensions. She admitted to keeping herself on track and not cracking jokes because of the recording of thelecture, which reduced her interactive way of teaching.6. DiscussionIt must be emphasized that this was an exploratory study and it may be very difficult for others to validate the model.Because the study involved only a small group of lecturers, the results cannot be generalized to the wider population ofuniversity lecturers. Furthermore, it is impossible to replicate a case study like this. Thus, the focus was onFig. 6. Group diagram: an integration of pedagogy and technology?understanding the process of using the diagram to illustrate the lecturers' perceptions over time. In the future,professional educators may want to engage in the process and use the reflective diagrams as a diagnostic tool. Thiscould serve as a way of replicating the process and verifying the benefits of using reflective diagrams as diagnostictools.Turning to the main findings in this study, the lecturers initially saw the use and understanding of technology inteaching as a separate issue to that of teaching itself, and this created a gap between pedagogy and technology in theirperception. In spite of the fact that their use of pedagogical innovation has been increased, some of the higher educationeducators in this study were limited by their lack of understanding of constructivist pedagogy and other by their lack ofunderstanding of the appropriate technologies as this is explained in their diagrams.If the primary focus of online teaching is seen as simply another mode of delivery designed to enhance the teachingand learning experience, then technology and pedagogy can be seen as existing separately with one having minimalimpact on the other. However, if elements of both can be seen as mutually supportive and interdependent, then it shouldbe possible to construct new meanings about teaching online that bridge the gap between pedagogy and technology. Adifferent aspect that is emphasized by Stansberry and Harris (2005) suggests that many educators in the veterinarymedical field who used instructional technology in their teaching advocate the importance of the technology toolswithout considering their role in the school's mission. Therefore, the use of technology in higher education should beincluded in the institution mission and purpose.The formation of a community of learners for the purpose of researching pedagogy within an e-learningenvironment enabled the examination of lecturers' changes in their use and understanding of technology and pedagogyand, in particular, in creating new interrelationships between the two components. The interdisciplinary educatorsformed a community of learners because, according to Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002), they had sharedobjectives, concerns, interests, and a common set of problems related to a practice. The professional developmentprovided motivational opportunities (Howland & Wedman, 2004) for the participants and introduced some practicalchanges in their innovative pedagogies. For example, the IT lecturer further committed herself to a social constructivistapproach by implementing group work with collaborative tools; the education lecturer made a decision to use thediscussion facilities, such as bulletin boards; the law lecturer decided to reduce the over flow of technology for thebenefit of using only what he determined to be pedagogically sound technology; and the environmental science lecturerremained skeptical and did not use the technology much in his teaching but enjoyed the interaction with colleagues oncampus.Each lecturer included comments about the valuable experience of participating in the group. Two lecturersmentioned their decreased isolation as a result of this collegial group, whilst a third found the support of the groupinvaluable. One lecturer noted the importance of dialogue in melding the continua and used concepts, such ascollaboration, participation and interaction. Although the four dimensions of classroom that Rovai (2002) identified(community of spirit, trust, interaction and commonality of expectation and goals) were not fully demonstrated, overall,there was a strong theme of collaboration and support as necessary components of online learning. By maximizing theopportunities for dialogue within a community of learners about authentic tasks and sharing problems using web-basedenvironment, the quality of teaching should be improved. An added benefit may also be the reduction in the isolation ofacademics who are often left on their own to work through masses of emails, Web-CT, and discussion boards. Harasimet al. (1995, p. 272) support these views when they state that the concept of education is changing from one based onindividualism and competition (with collaboration and exchange among students viewed as disruptive or cheating), toone in which teamwork and networking are valued, mirroring changes in society and the workforce. Sharing meaning,identity and growth through implementation of innovative forms of professional development enabled the creation oflearning community with some transformative effect on its members (Havelock, 2004). Hinson and LaPrairie (2005)emphasized that faculty can embrace innovations when supported by knowledgeable professionals and their peers.However, in their recent research on postsecondary professional development, Schrum, Burbank, Engle, Chambers,and Glassett (2005) identified at least two difficulties in forming a sustained learning community: the continuingchallenge of technological aspects and the requirement for intense instructor involvement.7. ConclusionIn a study presented in this paper the perceptions of a diverse group of lecturers reinforced the need for greater143D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145input in pedagogical innovation and in adoption of appropriate technologies in order to achieve the higher qualityof teaching. The integration of pedagogical issues such as participation, collaboration, interactivity, authenticactivities and the new role of the teacher in the online environment, and technological issues, such as increasedinstitutional support to develop competency with the use of appropriate technology will create successful e-learningenvironment.Lecturers' visual representations in this study suggest that there is a tension between pedagogy and technology thatis created by a lack of ability to use constructivist pedagogies to teach online or a lack of technological capabilities toimplement the pedagogies that match a lecturer's learning objectives. In professional development, the focus should beon pedagogical enhancement and helping lecturers use the technology in more meaningful way. When, within acommunity of learners, opportunities are provided to construct meaning about this process, reflections on theintegration of pedagogy and technology can take place more fruitfully. By using reflective diagrams as one technique,lecturers can locate themselves on the continua, while using the diagram to inspire themselves to adopt innovative waysof teaching. The diagram, therefore, can be used as a diagnostic tool to identify lecturers' positions in relation to theirpedagogy and use of technology and as a developmental tool to show their journey towards a more integrated approachin their online teaching. It must be acknowledged that this approach represents a new development in examining thisimportant area, and as such, should be explored in greater detail among the research community and practitioners ofonline teaching in higher education, in particular in relation to the functionality of the new technologies. This willenable better use of pedagogical innovation. Further study also will be needed to determine whether the final groupdiagram can be used as a benchmark and whether it adequately captures how individuals integrate pedagogy andtechnology.ReferencesAckermann, E. (1995). Construction and transference of meaning through form. In P. L. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education(pp. 341355). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. The SloanConsortium. Retrieved November 5, 2005, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/entering_mainstream.pdfAmey, M., & Brown, D. (2004). Breaking out of the box: Interdisciplinary collaboration and faculty work. Greenwich: Information Age Publisher.Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O'Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online: A survey of online education and services in Australia.Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved December 6, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/summaries_brochures/universities_online.htmBonk, C., Kirkley, J., Hara, N., & Dennen, V. (2001). Finding the instructor in post secondary online learning: Pedagogical, social, managerial,and technological location. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 7698). London:Kogan Page.Bonk, C. J., Wisher, R. A., & Nigrelli, M. L. (2004). Learning communities, communities of practice: Principles, technologies and examples. In K.Littleton, D. Miell, & D. Faulkner (Eds.), Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn (pp. 199219). New York: Nova Science.Conrad, D. (2002). Deep in the hearts of learners: Insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education, 17(1) (RetrievedDecember 6, 2005, from http://cade.icaap.org/vol17.1/conrad.html).Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Diamond, R. M. (1989). Designing and improving courses and curricula in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology(pp. 170198). New York: Macmillan.Garrison, R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.Hagner, P. R., & Schneebeck, C. (2001). Engaging the faculty. In C. A. Barone, & P. R. Hagner (Eds.), Educause leadership strategies, volume 5.Technology-enhanced teaching and learning: Leading and supporting the transformation on your campus (pp. 112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science,28(2), 115152.Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge: MIT Press.Havelock, B. (2004). Online community and professional learning in education: Research-based keys to sustainability. Association for theAdvancement of Computing in Education, 12(1), 5684.Hendriks, V., & Maor, D. (2004). Quality of students' communicative strategies delivered via computer-mediated communications. Journal ofInteractive Learning Research, 15(11), 532.Hinson, J. M., & LaPrairie, K. N. (2005). Learning to teach online: Promoting success through professional development. Community CollegeJournal of Research and Practice, 29, 483493.Howland, J., & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing technology learning. Journal of Technology and144 D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145Teacher Education, 12(2), 239263.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Maor, D. (2003). The teacher's role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational Media International,40(1/2), 127137.Maor, D. (2004). Opportunities with e-learning: Changing teachers' pedagogies. In C. Vrasidas, & G. V. Glass (Eds.), Online professionaldevelopment for teachers (pp. 213229). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Maor, D. & Zariski, A. (2003). Is there a fit between pedagogy and technology in online learning? Partners in learning: Proceedings of the 12thAnnual Teaching and Learning Forum 2003. Perth: Edith Cowan University. Retrieved December, 9, 2005, from http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/tlf/2003/pub/pdf/18_Maor_DoritZariski_Archie.pdfNelson, B. (2005). Our universities: Backing Australia's future minister's message. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST),Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved December 6, 2005, from http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/ministers_message.htmO'Connor, M. C. (1998). Can we trace the efficacy of social constructivism? Review of Educational Research, 23, 2571.Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A guide to understanding and working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Reeves, T. C. (2003). Storm clouds on the digital education horizon. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 326.Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, RetrievedMarch 5, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.1/rovai.htmlRovai, A. P. & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: Comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduatecourses, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/rovai-jordan.htmlSalmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching online. London: Kogan Page.Schrum, L., Burbank, M. D., Engle, J., Chambers, J. A., & Glassett, K. F. (2005). Post secondary educators' professional development: Investigationof an online approach to enhancing teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 279289.Shephard, K. (2004). The role of educational developers in the expansion of educational technology. International Journal for AcademicDevelopment, 9(1), 6783.Stansberry, S. L., & Harris, E. L. (2005). Understanding the interrelationship of instructional technology use and organizational culture: A case studyof a veterinary medical college. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32(1), 3137.Tobin, K. G. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education Washington, DC: AAAS Publications.Von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Mayer, & N. Noddings (Eds.),Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 1929). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.145D. Maor / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 133145Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.Using reflective diagrams in professional development with university lecturers: A developmenta.....IntroductionPedagogical innovation and related technologyProfessional development: data collectionResults: categories of pedagogy and technologyReflective diagrams: making meaning through visualizationFollow-up interviewsDiagrams analysis: from attempting integration to dynamic integrationCase study one: approaching integrationCase study two: from separate continua to integrationCase study three: slight move towards integration (use)Case study four: dynamic integrationGroup diagram integration of pedagogy and technology: fact or fiction?DiscussionConclusionReferences

Recommended

View more >