Personal philosophy

  My online teaching philosophy is evolving and becoming a more refined articulation of what it means to be a literacy and numeracy teacher in the 21^st century.  I have up until now subscribed primarily to cognitive (mental processing from short to long-term memory) and behavioural (stimulus and response) theories of learning, and believe that the learner constructs his or her own learning from prior knowledge or experience and in a socio-cultural location. The emergence of techno-literacy is bringing a need for new approaches to effective online learning, and, among other theorists, Siemens (2004) proposes a connectivist theory whereby educators need combine existing learning theories with the digital age.    Key beliefs drive my teaching philosophy, online or face to face:

1. Knowing the learners’ learning needs, cultural background, and learning styles
2. Having strong subject knowledge
3. A knowledge of sound pedagogical principles
4. In my ESOL context, being able to combine pedagogical practices from students’ prior learning culture with New Zealand educational practices
5. See literacy as a primarily cognitive practice embedded in a socio-cultural milieu 
6. See education as fluid serving different purposes at different times and being both formal and informal
7. A core value of responsibility ensures I strive to ‘deliver on my promise’
8. A strong work ethic, variously commented on, is a further core value that drives my commitment to value the learners’ needs

Sound educational principles such as Chickering & Gamson (1987)  influential  Seven principles for guiding good educational practice for undergraduate students  and the familiar Bloom’s Taxonomy (Moore & Stanley, 2010) providing a paradigm of thinking levels from knowing facts to higher order abstractions I believe are essential understandings for a teacher, but that these need to be at the foundation of online teaching.  Kalat (2007; cited in Anderson, 2008, p. 22) believes that online course designers need to ensure that the appropriate cognitive framework is contained in the design. 

Much research points to the need for teachers to be aware of how to best utilize the new technologies.  Learning materials need to be designed to engage the learner and facilitate learning.  Online learning needs to have high validity, i.e. the content needs to be relevant to the learner’s purposes for it, and it needs to be interactive and collaborative (Ring and Mathieux, 2002; ibid p.16). 

Much of my educational practice is based on cognitive psychology (which is situated in a socio-cultural context) and I believe that instructors need to implement strategies that provide for learners to transfer new information to long-term storage.   In an online environment, this means attending to technical issues and ensuring that critical information is highlighted to ensure that the learners are constructing new memories to related knowledge (Stoyanova & Kommers; 2002; ibid).

For myself, I endeavour to utilize as many modes as possible to facilitate cognitive processing simply because as many pathways as possible to the brain facilitate learning (Da Sousa, 2005;  Anderson, 2005, p.28) and cognitive strategies, I personally believe, drive all other theories.  The learner processes information cognitively and this cognition is located in a social and cultural environment (Vygotsky) The learner then constructs a schema, or cognitive mental map, theorized Jean Piaget in the 1950s (Psychologists and their theories, 2005, p. 353).

The emergence of techno-literacy is bringing a need for new approaches to effective online learning, and, among other theorists, Siemens (2004) proposes a connectivist theory whereby educators need  to combine existing learning theories with the digital age.  Connectivism  (George Siemens, 2004) holds that behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism are limiting in today’s digital age.  He believes that information flows from the individual, out to networks, to organizations and institutions and feeds back again. Critics of this theory argue that it is not a theory of learning as the networks the learner navigates may not be structured with any learning intent (Why connectivism is not a learning theory, 2011, n.a.) but that it is a theory of education.  Ally (2008; cited in Anderson, 2008, p. 37) proposes a four stage model for online education:  learner preparation, learner activities, learner interaction and learner transfer; these are all consistent with Gardener’s guiding principles.

Kanuka (2008) believes that we need to view the theories and technologies philosophically.  She notes that the pervasiveness of e-learning has brought tensions with it but that “philosophy inspires our activities and gives direction to our practices … we can articulate our own personal philosophy” (p.83).  She quotes Dahlberg (2003) who believes we have a tendency to align with one of three orientations, namely uses determinism, that sees technological artifacts for instrumental purposes;  technological determinism, which focuses on the forms and effects these artifacts have on society;  and social determinism which believes that societies and cultures influence these artifacts.  I would tend to subscribe mostly to a social determinism, because all learning is in a social practice and all cognition is social cognition and that “the brain is a social information processing organ” (Cacioppo & Berntson, editors, 2005).

The net generation concerns more with the activities, i.e. the uses, than the technology.  This view sees the technology as neutral, and a natural progression of logic is to take a retrograde view of all technology used for written symbols and see e-technology as one more evolving step (Lankshear, Snyder & Green, 2000).

Social determinism sees technology integrated into the education systems and believe that social forces shape the landscape of technological artefacts (Dahlberg, 2004; cited in Kanuka, 2008)   Connectivism is not inconsistent with this thought.

The liberal/perennial forms the basis of western education and is based in the Socratic tradition of rhetoric, question and evolving intellectual and moral value. This is woven into the fabric of our education system.

In conclusion, a personally articulated philosophy, a knowledge of sound pedagogy and androgogy, a familiarity with the tenets of behavioural, cognitive, and constructive theories in their socio-cultural practice needs to guide educators operating in a digital milieu;  the theory of connectivism appears to be one that is evolving and the effects on learners will require further observation in this rapidly evolving digital age.

References 

Ally, M. (2008) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning, 2^nd ed.           Edmonton: AU Press

Cacioppo, J.T. & Berntson, G.G. (2005) (Eds.). Social Neuroscience. New York and Hove: Psychology Press

Kanuka, H. (2008).  Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning, 2^nd ed. Edmonton: AU Press

Krapp, K. (Ed.) (2005). Psychologists and their theories for students, Vol. 2 L-Z.  MI: Thomson Gale  
                             
Lankshear, C., Snyder, I. & Green, B. (2000). Teachers and technoliteracy. Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools. NSW: Allen & Unwin

7 Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, University of South Carolina Center for Teaching Excellence. Retrieved 2013 April 28 from www.sc.edu/cte/guide/undergraduateducation/index.shtml

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, (2003). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=26925&URL_DO=DO_TOPI...

Why connectivism is not a learning theory (n.a.). Retrieved from http://apointofcontact.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/why-connectivism-is-not-a-learning-theory/