This page is still in construction.Education is changing. Of this, I have no doubt. And while it is evident that education—the structured milieu through which children are equipped with the skills and qualities expected of social citizens—has always changed in line with the society that it serves, the present restructuring of the canton is much more fundamental. For it is not just the face of education that is changing but, rather, education as a whole, its genetics. This is a revolution; and we, the revolutionaries. Whether we like it or not.
Though I have experienced difficulties in adapting my teaching strategies to an information and communications technologies (ICT) educational model, it is a restructuring that I now recognise I must learn to accommodate. Not being able to seamlessly navigate ICT as a valid and positive tool of modern pedagogy presents a significant handicap to me in today’s evolving scholastic environment. Thus I propose to investigate the nature of my shortcomings in light of the emerging educational paradigm.
Education as Social Change
To understand the changes that are unfolding in contemporary education, we may look analogously to the past. With the hindsight of nearly 150 years, it is easy to understand how and why the last major revolution in education was brought about. The school system as we know it was established directly correlative to the Industrial Revolution. The social structure prior to this was familial and local, thus children had been educated primarily in line with the family trade or as a skilled apprentice. With the advent of industrial technology, on the other hand, goods became at once more easily manufactured and widely distributed. Labour now, as opposed to skills, was important, and reliance on local trade was supplanted by a burgeoning global market. (Hahn, 2019c)
The children of this era, then, needed to be taught accordingly. Home education and local apprenticeship gave way to schoolhouses and institutional instruction. Children were no longer educated at the hands of their family or under direct tutelage, but amongst the group. Schooling in this manner was closely representative of the model of industry around which the changes in that social structure were revolving. And it worked. Society and education necessarily run hand-in-hand; and over the next hundred years, a new civilisation entirely was dawning. (Hahn, 2019c)
The natural progression from industry has since seen society unfold into a technological era. The importance of ICT, therefore, prominently computer-based, is not something into which we find ourselves only just now emerging. This social shift, rather, began some time ago. And so as it happens, we find ourselves amidst a new revolution, which affects virtually all aspects of modern civilisation. How ICT tools are altering societal constructs, however, and how exactly civilisation will conduct itself in the future thereof, is yet to be fully known. But that education would eventually redefine itself to reflect the new paradigm was inevitable. Change, though, in an institution as established and ubiquitous as education, has come slowly.
The Future, Now
Technologies such as instant messaging (IM), voice over IP (VOIP) and video conferencing have been a reality for over two decades, allowing us the opportunity to interact with one another in real time. And so we have been able, thanks to advances in communications infrastructure such as these, to maintain conversations both audibly and visually, connected with little to no delay through the internet and our computers. Yet while ICT devices have become prominent features in the infrastructure of our daily lives, the centrality of these technologies’ use has not seen proportionate growth in the school environment. For though computers, tablets and other such devices are frequently present in classrooms, their predominant use as supplementary didactic tools belies the centrality of these technologies in daily civil life.
This, I would argue, comes not so much from fear of change or even a shortcoming of competency with the instruments themselves. As IC technologies have become socially central for all of us, we are at least passably familiar with them in general. What we lack, rather, is the full comprehension of their capabilities. Just as industry and the assembly line radically affected the scope of late-19th Century daily lives, which had a direct or implied impact on virtually every aspect of society, so too is ICT altering the way our lives are being imagined, thought and carried entirely out in the Third Millennium. The question, then, moves beyond how education will change in this wake but “[w]hat would the industry look like if it were rebuilt from scratch using [the] technology we have today?” (Norris & Soloway, 2016, p. 61)
What is called for in modern schooling is a new thought process, a new imagination entirely of how we may carry out the task of educating the children in our care. For it is only by raising the progenitors of our social lineage within the context of all that they stand to inherit that will we truly do justice to our charge. And though it is impossible to know what lasting impact this “Technological Revolution” will have on our ways of life, if we are to truly equip our students with the skills and outlooks they will require as they make their way into—and continue to make—society, we must needs do so in the way that best befits modern civilisation as it actually presents itself.
What this means, then, is the centrality of ICT solutions in the conduct of teaching, not merely as adjuncts to the way school has “traditionally” been taught. Such technology “creates whole new ways of designing schools and challenges how we think of classrooms and the roles of educators” (Patrick, 2015, p. 56). Computers, tablets, mobile phones, “smart” devices, et al. must become prominently, if not primarily, featured as the new medium of delivery for education as a whole. As advancements are introduced, therefore, they should soon find their way into our lesson plans. Even as early as the beginning of the 20th Century have these changes been called for. Thomas Edison, upon the invention of the moving picture, predicted that films would completely change the way school was being taught. “It is possible to teach every branch of human knowledge with the motion picture. Our school system will be completely changed in ten years” (Saettler, quoted in Bush, 2013, p. 62) But his prediction was a hundred years delayed, for even after society had progressed well into the Digital Age, schooling had not yet seen its change.
And then with the sudden advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the shift from education’s traditional face-to-face model of instruction to an ICT-based pedagogy was effected virtually overnight. In this way, mostly unprepared, we saw the face of education’s future. Which, as it turns out, is right now. Edison’s vision of education by proxy has been realised with a start through video conferencing platforms such as Zoom, WebEx and Skype, etc., in a manner that the visionary could not have imagined.
The trouble is that though we have had ample time to integrate ICT into classroom pedagogy, we have maintained more or less the same overall structure of education since the dawning of the public school movement (Hahn, 2019c). So when we were presented a situation wherein we had to incorporate ICT as our sole mode of delivery, we didn’t have an appropriate protocol in place. And this was true both institutionally and on a personal level.
My Initial Professional Response
In dealing with the suddenly necessitated restructuring of education’s mode of delivery, I was personally confronted with how I would now be able to conduct my lessons. Grasping at straws, I attempted to run my classes stet, with effectively the only change being that I would interface with my students via a video conferencing platform instead of physically face-to-face. This seemed reasonable, for though I baulked somewhat at not being able to interact directly with my students, I had faith in the ICT technologies available to us and my general strength in computing skills.
Coming together with a class of fifteen Year 5-6 students, however, I was instantly confronted with how different the experience would be. I hadn’t totally appreciated how important presence was in gathering a group of people into a community of learners. Online, I was working with a moderator who was taking care of briefing and admitting students to the lesson for me In this way, the “class” came together all at once. But though everyone who was enrolled joined our session in unison, thanks to this moderation, the children were not on a level field in terms of focus or technological readiness.
It is, of course, not at all irregular in the classroom to have a wide spectrum of focus and/or readiness amongst students, but my initial impression in trying to bring all of these disparate learners together into a common focus online was that we were severely, if not irremediably, handicapped by being physically separate. Indeed, I never fully succeeded in gaining their devout attention.
Complicating the issue, several of the students experienced technical difficulties. We were using, in this case, the video conferencing platform, Zoom. The interface is not overly complicated, and though there are features enough to conduct a meeting, the experience isn’t heavily loaded with settings or options. That was, at least, my impression. But small matters became quickly compacted with users who were not so intuitively able to grasp the interface. Some students were confused or, at best, distracted by Zoom’s features, and others were unable to hear, see the screen or access shared documents entirely. In my own inexperience, I spent much of our allotted hour together in trying to troubleshoot these problems. This, in turn, sabotaged whatever momentum we’d been able to build as a class and resulted in a general lack of focus.
Further compounding the pressure I felt to sort out such difficulties was the presence of parents in the background. In an effort to assist their children, overseeing adults would come to the fore to interact with me directly in an effort to smooth the problems their children were facing. It was a unique situation to have, present during my lesson, parents and adults with a vested interest in what was being taught and how it was being delivered. I was mostly unprepared for it. And because these adults commanded more attention, with a bias that their children were going to get the full value out of the lesson, managing their supervision was a confronting and difficult task.
The ICT infrastructure, too, was a prohibitive issue as we initially tested the waters of this online approach. Connections, including my own, cut out from time to time. Due to this, the lesson stopped and started for one or all of us. On their side, students who lost connection with Zoom for whatever reason missed sometimes crucial points in the delivery. And in the several unexpected outages I experienced as the host, I lost documents, information, images and videos that I had enqueued to share. Unable to recover them on the fly due to the limitations of my equipment, I was obliged to improvise a new direction for the lesson I had planned. And though “improvisation” is, to be honest, almost my preferred pedagogical modus operandi, my unpreparedness for the nuances of online presentation took me considerably aback.
The Problem
Ultimately, it became clear upon reflection that the problem for me becomes not how I can adapt my teaching practice to online delivery, but how I can almost completely revolutionise my pedagogy to account for ICT and the technological society in which we live. At least, that’s how it initially feels. This is in line with what I outlined above. These new technologies are not extensions of our ways of thinking and doing, but rather impetus for entirely new social, intellectual and practical solutions. Principally, what intrigues me, perhaps even to the point of a plague from this initial vantage-point, is how I can encourage experiential learning while not being in control of the environment in which the children are physically conducting their education. How can I conduct poignant and cohesive lessons without being in the presence of those in my care?
Principal among the facets of this that I could identify in my preemptive forays into the field of computer-based pedagogy was that it felt difficult to make an emotional and psychological connection with my students remotely. Establishing this connection has always been a keystone to my educational approach, taking very much into consideration my requirement as a teacher to educate the whole child as opposed to being simply the harbinger of academic instruction (Hahn, 2019d). But even if I were to pigeonhole myself in the latter way, I have not figured out a manner by which to truly enthuse students for their learning without first appealing to these humanitarian aspects.
This, I am finding, is difficult to conceptualise in the online context. Due to the radically modulated manner in which I have been able to interact with my students through video conferencing means, I have not felt a true student-teacher bond develop. For though we are able to communicate orally and, to a limited degree, through non-verbal cues, the full range of human interaction is stymied when interpersonal contact is digitised.
This leads to the greater question of how I will be able to structure my lessons in a way that can provide children the direct experience they need in their learning. Acknowledging the fact that the boon of experiential education is still, in some camps, debatable, I recognise it as the mode of delivery that works for my style of teaching and gets the best results. And while I must keep an open mind to changing even this as I strive to requisition a methodology that will fit both my educational bent and the technologies to which I am learning to adapt myself, I will begin by searching out a manner in which I may facilitate personal experience to remote learners through ICT.
Finally, this initial inspection of my shortcomings in this arena highlights the need for firm and established management strategies. The online environment differs to a physical classroom in that I, as the moderator, have relatively limited scope for monitoring the needs and movements of the students. In my preliminary experience with digital space, I have also felt at a loss for a manner in which I can distance students who, for one reason or another, are presenting distractions to the class. And as students are virtually isolated, it will be difficult to appease attention seekers who will, in effect, have the audience of the whole class at their disposal. In this way, classroom management as I foresee it will require increased attention and pointed innovation.
General Methodology
What it will take to achieve success in this nascent field is an open mind, an experimental outlook and a healthy focus of imagination. How I might use available ICT platforms to the best possible advantage will be, frankly, a long process of trial, success and error. What this will certainly require, however, are novel approaches to education in order to strike upon a solution that will meet my requirements as well as those of the students in my tutelage.
Critical to success in this endeavour will be, facile as it may sound to say, my willingness to rise to the task. This is something that I have been able to identify in myself, not just in my teaching practice but also in more general foci. When something captivates me, I will put long and dedicated attention into building and perfecting it. Conversely, things that present merely academic or externally necessitated interest will be met with meted measure. And as the current change in pedagogical delivery is so radical in scope, it is something that will require of me a great willingness to question and truly revolutionise my ideas of “best practice.” Large as it is and as alien as it sounds to me initially, this particular proposition will require my utmost devotion.
Thankfully, I have come to realise that anything can be interesting if we are patient enough to look at it with care, an open mind and patience. Learning, as I experience it, is something done within a greater perspective of both historical and personal context. My teaching practice has always changed, for all of life is ever changing. Sometimes this change has been drastic and deliberate, and sometimes it has been gradual enough to be scarcely noticeable. Through meditative reflection, both introspective and within the scope of my daily life, I strive to identify the growth my life is experiencing (Hahn, 2019a). What I will need to identify within the present changes I am facing, then, is why this movement is crucial at this juncture and how exactly I may answer growth’s call. With this underpinning identified, interest will be inherent in its proposition.
It is for these reasons that I have commenced my action research in this way, beginning in a retrospective outlook into the question at hand. We, as many of my lessons reiterate, are at the centre of history. Similarly, I hope my “hidden curriculum” will attest that we are beings who owe our livelihood to divine grace, regardless of if we understand the forces that move us or circulate around us. By investigating and understanding this question in this scope then, I will be mollified in my concerns as to the need for such seemingly radical change.
Along similar lines to the contextual perspectives I seek, I also recognise my propensity to favour projects of grander scale. By identifying, at least hypothetically, the long-term goals and promises of any changes that eventuate from the digitisation of education, I will know what it is that I am working toward. This will help me do things that I may not necessarily want to do immediately or be excited about in their own right. This will also help me, as I begin to learn more and envision where all of this could ideally be headed, to break down that long-term goal into small, more manageable, requisite steps.
This, then, will inform my over-arching methodology. Having established already a historical precedent that appeases my mind as to ICT’s context, I will identify at least the preliminary sketches of an ultimate ideal for digital pedagogy. With this end-goal in mind, I will identify an appropriate starting point as my first step toward overcoming the difficulties I have been facing in presenting lessons via video conferencing platforms. This first goal, of course, will address some or several of the issues with which I was confronted in my initial forays, as outlined above.
Also, to get a feel for the direction I might take in this relatively new field of study, I will peruse literature and focused research. These repositories will assist me as I strive to articulate new angles to my approach. Yet due to the emerging nature of the field, I will rely on interviews and other personal testimony of daily lived experience as well. As schooling now has been conducted online for several months, I have been able to glean valuable information from students and teachers alike regarding their experiences with the ICT delivery of education.
The Literature
Brought quickly to public awareness by the distance education required of COVID-19 conditions, in accordance with social distancing and quarantine measures, the world has now begun to consider these redesigned educational paradigms in a new light. Yet because we are only presently coming fully to its realisation, the depth of study that has gone into addressing the question at hand is proving to be limited at best. By far the most research that has been made available, though relatively current, investigates the utility of ICT solutions in academia and tertiary education (Longo, 2016). Little attention seems to have been made as to how primary schooling may effectively adopt these technologies.
The advantage of this, however, lies in the very nature of the more advanced ages of the subjects who were polled. While all feedback from children of school-aged years would be directly pertinent, the more mature students may be able to shed an invaluable quality of light onto the matter. The publicised responses that the university students in these studies have been able to pontificate bestow insights that are especially beneficial due to the maturity of their articulation. And while their ages are not directly corollary to the students in whose education I am directly interested, the underlying psychology seems to be similar, if not identical to those with whom I am concerned.
Overall, extant literature discusses ICT solutions to education from several possible angles. The novelty of this field finds us still at a stage where answers to the questions raised by this restructuring of education are still primarily hypothetical. As such, a wide scope of possibilities are being suggested. Proposed frameworks range from integrating IC technologies into the extant physical classroom model—paradigms such as the Flipped Classroom (FCM) and Blended Learning (BL) models—to the relocation of education to online space entirely—propositions such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), fully immersive virtual technologies, and other Massively Multi-person Online Learning Environments (MMOLEs). And while these may or may not prove to be directly translatable to school-aged education, by considering each I will be able to refine my understanding of both the long-term possibilities and their short-term applications as I adapt myself to the evolving norm.
Fully Immersive Environments
Ultimately, the task presented by the adoption of ICT solutions in education is to “distinguish connected learning online from connecting class experiences through the Web.” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 114) That is to say, there is a distinct difference between using ICT as a part of learning and learning through ICT. At the farthest extreme of these is conducting classes and/or various lessons through immersive online learning environments. By establishing a virtual space, one that “substitutes, or augments, the stimuli to one or more of a person’s senses” (Craig et al., 2009, p. 134), a “world” is created that “heightens the participant’s experience and leads to greater retention.” (2009, p. 136). It has been cited that learners are more willing to interact, express themselves and take chances in such worlds. Whatever anxiety students may have experienced face-to-face or even in live video streaming is mollified by interacting via an avatar (Craig et al., 2009). This “gamification” (Spector et al., 2016) of education also establishes an element of fun that draws students to spend more time in these virtual classrooms than they would have physically (Craig et al., 2009).
Establishing this type of learning environment, however, is both time consuming and resource expensive if we are aiming for fully “engaging and pedagogically sound virtual worlds for learners” (Craig et al., 2009, p. 140). And though I would be remiss to shy away from a revolutionary idea simply because it would require a dedication of invested time and effort, I remain dubious of the wisdom of replacing physical interaction entirely. And this is “not because face-to-face classroom learning represents a philosophical default in education, but because it has and will continue to structure…lived experiences” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 114). Just how children would be able to meet all of their multidimensional needs as an avatar in online space eludes me. As a viable answer to the quandaries with which I am grappling personally in my professional development, therefore, this sort of solution is untenable. That is to say that it is so as an overarching pedagogical model. For while I remain unconvinced of virtual worlds’ holistic nature, I recognise their promise.
From the consideration of these immersive technologies, then, a couple of key takeaways may be identified that can help form part of the underlying lattice upon which I will erect a framework of the ICT model I seek. One such benefit, which I will aim to ultimately incorporate into any model I concoct or appropriate, comes from the “persistence” of such immersive environments. In this sense, this means that the spaces the students help to establish and populate is always there, always available for the learners’ interaction. And due to the space’s nature as a logically consistent “world,” any actions or additions made by its inhabitants affect the environment itself, not just for the individual learner but for all those connected therein (Craig et al., 2009). In this way, learners, regardless of their physical location, contribute to their shared space and collaborate in each other’s learning simply by participating. Persistence in MMOLEs such as these lends a sense of ownership to the educational course, facilitating natural involvement and participation.
This bridging of disparate students further highlights the ability that online spaces have to connect individual learners with one another. Due to the nature of the technologies we now find available to us, we are presented with an opportunity to interface one classroom with another regardless of the physical separation that may distance them, thereby “extend[ing] the reach of the nation’s best teachers and schools” (Earth Institute & Ericsson, 2016, p. 58). In Australia, where distance and accessibility are factors that have long affected the equal access to education (Hahn, 2019e, 2019f), this faculty may prove vital in providing more egalitarian opportunities in schooling. Yet even among communities where access is not such an issue historically, the opportunity to widen the learning community and share ideas even to global perspectives is a benefit not necessarily specific to immersive spaces.
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
Somewhat less grand in scope technologically, but still removed from physical face-to-face interaction, MOOCs have reached over 110 million students worldwide by the end of 2019 (Shah, 2019). These courses, through platforms such as Coursera, EdX, EdCast, Udemy and others (Earth Institute & Ericsson, 2016), make video presentations of over 13,500 courses from more than 900 universities available to the public online (Shah, 2019). Due to this wide availability without the need to seek an entire degree or enrol fully in a specific learning institute, “[s]kill-based learning becomes the drivers for MOOC learners rather than degree-based learning” (Vivolo, 2016, p. 402). This may, in fact, begin to hint at how the current “Technological Revolution” is changing the face of education entirely. Could it be that this new, more individualised motivation for education is a reflection of our society as it shifts to adopt, as we saw requisite in response to COVID-19 quarantines, ever-increasing remote interaction within and between social institutions? And with evidence that in many ways “online learning works as effectively as traditional onsite learning” (Vivolo, 2016), it appears that the reality of ICT’s future in education is more than merely an academic consideration.
This extraordinary public response to new availability of education has resulted in a situation where “the scale of teaching with or without technology has never been wider” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 104). For this reason, MOOCs can not be ignored in their importance and the lessons they can teach us about education in the modern era. This “digital untethering of collaborative learning” becomes, in fact, an entirely new “‘heuristic’ for understanding our changing interfaces with students” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 105). Yet this fully externalised model requires careful planning and targeted delivery. While the perception of quality has been indicated to play a significant role in learner satisfaction, “perceived value” was the better predictor, where value is a function of what the learner receives vis-à-vis the education’s cost (Zhai et al., 2017). In other words, what been shown to be important through an investigation into the dynamic increase in MOOCs’ popularity, above and beyond the outcomes met by the courses themselves, is what the student stands to receive as a function of how much time, effort and/or finance he or she has committed.
This revelation helps us prioritise how we design our lessons. And it seems logical that we may extend the idea to all forms of delivery. It will not be fully advantageous to design a course that meets lofty or spectacular outcomes if the costs of that course’s completion are too high. For this is how we will encourage learner satisfaction, which has in turn “has been proven to be a vital predictor of learning outcomes and behavioral intention to continue learning” (Zhai et al., 2017, p. 198).
One of the other notable draws to MOOC education is its format. Presented to the community via recorded videos available for streaming or download, students are afforded the ability to revisit the lesson as often as they find necessary and at a pace that befits them. Interestingly, while this does mean that pupils have the ability to pause a recording to gather their understanding, take notes, refine concepts or otherwise take advantage of the opportunity to slow down the speed of the lesson’s delivery (Zhai et al., 2017), many users have actually reported a preference to “attend” lectures at speeds increased from 1.3 to 2 times the recorded rate (Bush, 2013). In this way, MOOC design allows learners the opportunity to fine-tune lessons to their personal preference.
But while the literature reviewed for this research shows much enthusiasm for MOOC education in general, it is also careful to caution the limitations of said delivery. For though MOOCs can be identified as being at the forefront of the new “ubiquitous approach to education” (Craig et al., 2009, p. 139), their very nature as broad and wholly inclusive platforms undermines their ultimate efficacy. By providing courses designed to cater to all who would enrol, personalised care and individuation are lost. And although recorded videos can be slowed or hastened according to student preference, due to the remoteness of the courses’ natures it is predicted that “MOOCs are destined to fail because they don’t address the needs of individual students” (Bush, 2013, p. 61). Proponents of MOOC and other pure MMOLE designs malign schoolhouse education with the moniker “sequestered learning,” one that is through mere affectation “protectively cloistering its students from the sins of the world” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 104), but the MMOLE format appears to have fallen short in meeting students in the manifold dimensions of human experience. “[A] house,” after all, “is not a home” (Spencer-Oatey, 2007, p. 83)
Similarly, while the ubiquity of MOOC programs provide opportunities for learners to engage in education regardless of their location, research has demonstrated that such “static and solitary nature leaves learners isolated from both their peers and instructors, and disengaged from the content itself” (Craig et al., 2009, p. 132). And though the egalitarian promises of these learning models present a lofty ideal, the simple fact of their basic infrastructural requirements also elicit concerns that any radical move in this direction will only serve to exacerbate achievement gaps (Bush, 2013, p. 61).
Blended Learning (BL) & the Flipped Classroom Model (FCM)
But it would be a “grievous error” to consider immersive learning environments, MOOCs, and other MMOLEs as the sole solution to ICT education (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 105). There exist other, less completely removed models from which we may glean valuable insights as we investigate ways to adopt these new technologies. Both BL and FCM strive to incorporate ICT into education in not just superficial but integral ways. And each, in so doing, affect a substantive change in the way teaching is modelled.
BL is a mode of education that aims to seamlessly combine an ICT presence in delivery with face-to-face norms. Using both physical and digital presence in the presentation of lessons, educational content is untethered from any one particular setting. This facilitates an understanding in BL learners that the “prepared environment” (Montessori, 2014) is, ultimately, an internal state. Students are afforded more choice, interactive creativity and personal connection to their learning (Longo, 2016). At the same time, this multi-faceted approach considers the needs of the children in five full pillars of their latency—environmental, emotional sociological, physiological, and psychological (Dunn and Dunn, cited in Longo, 2016, p. 34).
FCM takes the concept of individual responsibility a degree further. Topics are initially investigated by students independently by means of pre-recorded video, isolated research and peer discussion—all of which being accomplished in major part through ICT solutions. With a foundation thus laid, accumulated knowledge is brought into the classroom by the students for collaborative investigation and teacher-led conceptual abstraction (Zhai et al., 2017). In this manner, “externalization of knowledge” is affected in students through independent effort—as opposed to being imparted, like humidity unto a sponge by a teacher through lessons—whereas “internalization,” instead, is accomplished collectively—as opposed to the “traditional” employment of homework or other independent means (Zhai et al., 2017, p. 199).
What this “flipping” of education implies is that students are able to learn at a self-directed pace, reflecting upon and refining their foci as befits personal interests and revelations (Zhu, 2012). As learners grapple with new concepts in this way, they, themselves, are required to formulate angles of approach that will help them integrally understand any topic. Through this methodology, then, critical thinking is fostered within the initial exposure students have to new concepts (Longo, 2016). Topics are investigated through the lens of “dialectically…figuring out what we [students, their peers and teachers] can still do, in person, together” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 114).
This works because also “flipped” in this alternate pedagogy are the relationships teachers and students have with one another. Learners are engaged with their instructors in a “common experience” (Craig et al., 2009, p. 132). Further, the “virtualisation” of the educator’s role has been noted to eradicate certain barriers within students, notably the subservience they have felt to teachers as “authority figures”, thus promoting a greater willingness to ask questions and otherwise participate (Earth Institute & Ericsson, 2016). Similarly, the confidence of children who consider themselves to be “poor learners” is enhanced through the inclusion of ICT (Earth Institute & Ericsson, 2016). And though these findings that are to be found within the reviewed literature remain, in a sense, theoretical to my understanding, they are sentiments that have been personally related to me by professionals in the field (K. Driver, personal communication, 24 June 2020; K. Warren, personal communication, 24 June 2020).
In all, both BL and FCM provide methods of instruction structured on Kolb’s experiential learning cycle; the two pedagogical constructs in question are designed to provide students “authentic experience,” as opposed to “learning vicariously through lectures or text” (Spencer-Oatey, 2007, 85–86). This allowance in education has been demonstrated as markedly effective (Zhu, 2012), for through direct experience students are inculcated into a habit of seeking “multiple solution approaches and acceptable solutions” (Spector et al., 2016, p. 63).
To assist in this process, a culture of collaboration is inherent to BL and FCM education. Just as the role of the teacher becomes less authoritarian—and, thereby, knowledge becomes seen as not held in repository by an “expert” but openly available to all—the role of peers becomes elevated. Thus, in an environment more conducive than what face-to-face instruction allows, individual students learn to look to their fellows as they strive to master a concept and delve deeper into critical understanding (Longo, 2016; Zhai et al., 2017; Zhu, 2012). Indeed, peer support is just as, or perhaps more conducive to deep learning than instruction under the tutelage of a teacher. Within the company of equals, learners are more free to “metacognitively reflect on their learning by agreeing, disagreeing, or reconstructing the knowledge presented” (Longo, 2016, p. 37).
In designing our platform, we must be mindful however of the nature of the technology we endeavour to incorporate. The amount of information available through electronic means, the so-called “vertigo of the open web” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 111), can become overwhelming if not managed properly. If a task is too open-ended or unclear to students, of if they have not been prepped with appropriate methodologies for extracting relevant information from the practically infinite gulf of the internet, they could easily become lost or resort to “resource jumping” (Marcus et al., 2004, p. 581). This could likewise result from lack of true learner involvement in their topics due to a paucity of interest or any similar disconnection.
We also must be careful to not rely too heavily on ICT. Though the change whose call I’ve endeavoured to address in this Action Research focus is indeed centred around ICT solutions/devices, it will be very important that said technologies don’t become an end in and of themselves. We must be certain that very ICT we are championing remains in its sphere as a valid, instructive tool for holistic education. For “[i]f kids are in front of a tablet all day, it’s not really going to prepare them for the most important parts of their education, which are character skills, social and emotional learning, and the ability to apply what they’re learning in the real world, in a decontextualized way” (Norris & Soloway, 2016, p. 62) Relatedly, the very same resources students have at their disposal for educational purpose also present vast networks of distraction in terms of games, videos, etc. that will have to be closely monitored (Zhai et al., 2017).
But the BL/FCM instructor has resources built into those pedagogies that can help minimise such diversions. Hand-in-hand with experiential learning, BL and FCM are models into which formative styles of assessment can be integrated. Formative assessment—dubbed “assessment for learning” (Bennett, cited in Spector et al., 2016, p. 59) and often in the guise of “stealth assessment” (Spector et al., 2016, p. 65)—is a manner of gauging progress incrementally as learning progresses. This style of assessing is particularly applicable in modern schooling, being indicative of the collaborative, interactive manner in which work and trade are carried out in the 21st Century (Spector et al., 2016, p. 61) and is regarded as one of the most effective practices available to educators (Spector et al., 2016, p. 58). ICT in particular provides a platform conducive to this type of assessment. With “every child’s progress mapped in real time,” students are greatly benefited by “immediate and actionable feedback” (Earth Institute & Ericsson, 2016, p. 51). The responses learners get directly from their work give them the time and opportunity to form and refine their approaches (Vivolo, 2016) and “lead to a whole new level of curiosity, inquiry, and experiential learning” (Craig et al., 2009, p. 140).
Take-Aways
Through consideration of the ICT solutions presented in the literature, several themes and trends can be identified. In the modern era, children are inheriting a world in which whole new knowledge-sets and methods of interacting are expected. Skills such as digital literacy, environmental awareness, remote connectivity, joint problem-solving, and others must now become requisite considerations in the contemporary worldview (Spector et al., 2016). And while these are global issues, addressing them will help inform the personal practice I seek in order to streamline my facility with online education. Put simply, “ICT is a necessity for successfully navigating [children’s] future careers” (Earth Institute & Ericsson, 2016, p. 47). And as this need is a resounding call of the society in which we—students and teachers, alike—live, the use of ICT will be intuitively appreciated by society’s children as they strive to find their place as civil citizens. Children, it seems, show little to no difficulty in adapting to these new ways. The question is, can I?
The answer, then, becomes a matter of degree. MOOCs, immersive learning “worlds,” and MMOLEs propose the exchange of face-to-face education with a fully technological delivery. Yet, although nominally bridging people across vast distances into what could be considered something of a shared experience, this approach has been shown to isolate learners psychologically to their detriment (Spencer-Oatey, 2007).
What appears to be vital for students as they enter into what could be called “the unbearable lightness of being connected” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 111) is the creation of new and deliberate interrelationships to one another and their purpose. Any ICT course will have to be carefully designed with deliberate, clear goals and appropriate tools (Vivolo, 2016). But that planned framework must at the same time be flexible enough to accommodate for—and even encourage—peer interaction and spontaneous activity (Gold & Klein, 2016), as well as adequate time for individual work completion (Marcus et al., 2004). Whatever pedagogy we settle upon, it must intrinsically draw out collaboration and interpersonal respect. The lessons of BL and FCM make it clear that experiential learning is the avenue I will most profit from in this pursuit.
The authors also repeatedly caution that learner preparedness is perhaps the most crucial consideration for success in any form of digital education (Earth Institute & Ericsson, 2016; Longo, 2016; Marcus et al., 2004; Spector et al., 2016; Spencer-Oatey, 2007; Zhai et al., 2017; Zhu, 2012). And while this is true generally, it may be particularly so with an education based on technological devices. In order to be able to interact with their lessons, students in an ICT framework are going to have to be comfortable in their learning environment. Lack of adequate exposure to the technologies before lessons commence may lead to certain students feeling anxious or uncertain about their learning (Spencer-Oatey, 2007, p. 83). Personal experience (Hahn, 2019b) as well as direct communication with educational leaders (K. Driver, personal communication, 24 June 2020; K. Warren, personal communication, 24 June 2020) have borne this to be true. In fact, “prior learning experience is a far more significant predictor of learners’ favorable perceptions” of their ICT education than even the perceived value of the course, previously shown to be so critical (Zhai et al., 2017). Without due care given to this recognition, any delivery of education through ICT will be severely handicapped.
All of this seems to say that the principles which guide best practice in online education are much the same, if not identical to those which I have been able to personally identify as important even in traditional face-to-face teaching models (Hahn, 2019d). What separates the two is the view of the online environment as a valid and equally effective classroom environment. And so I will be obliged to identify, in an ICT sense, what is personal—in how an individual interacts with his or her lesson—what is common—in the tools and pervasive environment we as teacher and pupils collaborate in building—and what is shared—in the mutual experiences and support that we give one another that peers lend amongst themselves (Gold & Klein, 2016).
Action
The literature and my initial forays into this fledgling field have only reiterated my premonition that ICT education will effectively require an entirely new pedagogy “Design requires specificity” to be meaningful to any targeted approach, “and specificity prohibits reusability” (Downes, quoted in Bush, 2013, p. 62). Yet it will be impossible to jump from this starting point to an entire reorganisation of my teaching practice. Thus it will be necessary to make my way to any new paradigm in discreet steps; it would be difficult for me and disadvantageous to my students to affect too jarring and sudden a change. It has been cautioned, however, that “[i]t takes a lot of hard work to let things go” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 112), and this move from my studied and practised face-to-face teaching model is something that I recognise will challenge me.
The literature I have undertaken to review is still in its infancy. And though it does not necessarily address the age-range with which I am concerned and only hints at the elements of a combined solution that will inspire a workable, personal, ICT-inclusive pedagogy within me, I have been greatly assisted by these journals in identifying key starting points to an approach I will be able to undertake. “The problem is not the learning,” one author notes, “but the design or the person teaching the course” (Vivolo, 2016, p. 403).
By this standard, the first part of my actionable plan has been, accordingly, to investigate the barriers within myself that I am facing in response to the pedagogical revolution I see unfolding. What I have identified is an incredulity that the online platform can possibly meet all the human needs of the growing child, including her social and emotional dimensions. I am also uncertain of my classroom management skills in an online context. In a way, this relates to the previous question, for my primary mode of managing behaviour in the physical environment has relied heavily on the formation of trust and understanding in the emotional connections I establish with my students. But another aspect of my uncertainty in management online is the paucity of tools I have available to settle the environment and effectively isolate any issues the students and I encounter. Finally, though I am confident in the promise that ICT has, as well as the skills that my students and I have in ICT’s usage, it will take practice and experience to demonstrate to me that computers and other devices can become a viable, welcoming learning environment.
And so before I completely “Unscrew the locks from the classroom doors! Unscrew the classroom doors themselves from their jambs!” (Gold & Klein, 2016, p. 106), I will have to have to take my changes in stride. For this first refinement of my delivery, then, I will focus on the my expectations and classroom management strategies as I strive to define a shared online space. Ideally I would like, at least at first, to run short, small classes in order to refine these points, but the venue in which I have to present my lessons will not condone this. G·A·T·E·WAYS, the company for which I work, has requirements that all programs are populated with fifteen students. I will, therefore, have to abide by this constraint.
The expectations I can envision imposing initially will be to establish a culture wherein all students are encouraged to share. Though I have found it difficult to draw forth more reserved learners in an online context, I am confident that pointed questions will help encourage all children to participate. I will have to be very careful to pay close attention to the visual clues I am receiving, therefore, in order to know when this will be at once necessary and important.
On the other end of that spectrum, I am going to have to put into place constraints on those who would talk too much. A colleague has suggested that an established time limit of 40 seconds for each individual’s contribution has been effective (D. Douchin, personal communication, 7 June 2020). As these things have contributed to the management difficulties I have initially experienced, I feel that the above solutions will already grant me more confidence in my ability to navigate the ICT milieu.
It seems very little, but just these small steps will begin to lead me to the more ultimate goal that I am beginning to envision. Through and through, I am hoping that the maxim of experiential learning—“the practice of discovering for oneself teaches one to acquire information in a way that makes it more readily viable” (Buner, quoted in Longo, 2016, p. 34)—will apply to me in this journey.
Feedback
Following presentation of a follow-up G·A·T·E·WAYS program, the feedback I received from parents, students and my supervisors was largely positive. Something that I had not considered but was related to me was that almost above all it is the presence, attitude and enthusiasm of the presenter that makes a lesson work online (K. Driver, personal communication, 24 June 2020). Hearing this brought to mind a similar sentiment that I had read in the literature. “A well-developed course with an engaging instructor utilises all the available engagement tools to create interactive learning” (Vivolo, 2016, p. 403). And while I feel that my course still leaves much to be desired, I was pleased to hear that I had come across as an “engaging instructor.”
I also noticed that the statement of my expectations, established at the onset of our time together, provided a structure that helped maintain the children’s focus and attention. The chat room had been a distraction to learners as they began to explore the platform while in my first session, but with boundaries in place it became a venue for students to help their peers through certain technological questions and problems, as well as a place in which they could engage in side conversations that deepened their understanding.
Meanwhile, I was cautioned that not all of my ideas had translated well to ICT from the lesson I had essentially planned for face-to-face instruction. I was given the advice to not worry too much, at least at this beginning point, about using all of Zoom’s features. It was suggested that an “old-fashioned” whiteboard in the background was easier seen than screen-sharing and removed many of the technical difficulties we had faced with collaborative Google Docs files and the online whiteboard.
In all, the small actions I took in refining my delivery, though perhaps seemingly insignificant, helped me tremendously. Though it is true that I did get a bit of insight into how exactly video conferencing sessions might better be run, the more important fallout of my “improved” delivery was the confidence that it gave me that I could indeed make even something so initially foreign as ICT education become something that I not only am able to do but can become excited about developing further.
Future Questions
Far beyond the point at which I find myself now lies a pedagogy that incorporates all that I have learned though readings of the literature, poignant discussions with students, parents and colleagues, and direct, personal experience. This future ICT directive also, of course, makes use of all that I have not encountered or thought of yet. But from here I can already see areas of future interest.
In line with what I had learned in my studies for this research project, I can see how vital it will be to include in future lessons initial “ice-breaker” activities. They will not only introduce students to the technologies they will be using, but also begin to facilitate the feeling of community that is required for deep and personal connection to education. These can be increasingly challenging in a way that will make the ice-breakers themselves valuable academically. This will also, if done correctly, initialise the type of “empathy” between myself and my students that will support their achievement (Norris & Soloway, 2016).
As my experience grows, so too will the environment I am able to build. Ultimately I would like to experiment with tools such as e-portfolios, blogs and pervasive forums that the children could access even outside of our sessions together. These would simultaneously help foster the sense of community so vital to success in education, become a platform for the students to continue to interact and collaborate independently, and provide a place where they can turn for assistance.
And as I continue to gauge my success in this field, I would like to determine what differences there are in solutions and required approaches based on subject, specific lesson and pupils present. I think it will be beneficial to identify the core fundamentals of a pedagogy that works universally, as opposed to the peculiarities endemic to specific contexts. This, I feel, would establish the firmest possible ground I could have as an educator in this emerging field.
I have also, for the record, now bought a new computer in hopes of ironing out many of the technical difficulties I faced.
Conclusion
Though the field of ICT education has long been possible in contemporary society, it is a movement that is only beginning to truly gain momentum now. And though the change had been sensed in the wind by certain scholars, much to our advantage now, the sudden necessity of it most recently took much of the academic world by surprise. I was among this number.
Having had the chance to review the literature now and begin to take steps to correct the misconceptions I had about digital pedagogy initially, I have begun to see the medium in a new light. It will take long and deliberate effort on my part, but I can envision now a teaching model that can incorporate modern technologies in a way that does justice to both their intrinsic potential and the importance they have to society—and, thus, the children who are learning the skills they will need to actively participate therein. This is the beginning of a long road, but by breaking it down into small, actionable steps I am confident that the revolution currently called for in education can be one that is positive, formative and peaceful.