The journey to
recognise a personal philosophy about learning and teaching with technology has
been challenging in terms of past experience in classrooms, current standards
and a technological future.
In the past,
conditioning methods administered by traditional teachers had long term negative
influence not recognised at the time. However, the influence of that timeframe
has promoted a distinct appreciation of the constructivist approach. Schunk (2012) details “constructivism” (p.
491) in instructional delivery which will be addressed in a later submission.
For example, current
standards of faculty employment, programme requirements and associated lesson
plans provide the opportunity for resource selection per session. Therefore, it
is an educator’s choice whether to use online technology as an educational aid
once availability of appropriate technology has been addressed.
What this highlights is
student outcomes, the absolute responsibility placed on educational
practitioners of our day, their ability to teach and/or facilitate a student’s academic
journey and with the aid of online technology (computers) institutionally.
From an institutional perspective,
what is primarily experienced as a current standard is the political and
economic influence of Government funding in the tertiary sector. For instance, TEC
(2010) set its priorities for funding as one, increasing enrolments for Youth
(defined as under 25), Māori, and Pasifika students and two as performance enhancement
in adult literacy, language and numeracy skills, for students in study.
The influence in our
institution had been optional access, at that stage, to the National Assessment
Tool (Tool) for levels one to three students. The Tool had been in its infancy
and staff were given the option to participate with their students. At that
time, the Tool was seen as an additional burden to an already heavy curriculum.
Yet despite the lack of staff motivation, faculties were encouraged to register
appropriate staff for staff development training.
For example, staff
training was provided for Internet access to the Tool. Areas covered were online
management and operation from assessment criteria, to student participation and
the report facility for both staff and students.
What this highlights institutionally
is compliance based on funding because as we know from experience, what is
deemed optional one year will eventually be mandatory for an institute in the
long term.
Fast forward to this
month, institutionally, the Tool is mandatory for all students from levels one
to three in their study nationally. In turn, tertiary institutes’ in-house faculties
have produced a compliment of appropriate staff familiar with the Tool’s
operation. The most surprising finding is the release of the latest tertiary
education strategy by the Government.
TEC (2014) set its
priorities on delivery of skills for industry (p. 9), getting at-risk (unqualified
and lack of work experience) young people into a career (p. 11), boosting
achievement standards for Māori and Pasifika students (p. 12), improving adult
literacy and numeracy skills (p. 15), strengthening research-based institutions
(p. 16) and grow international linkages (p. 18).
For example, the
Ministry of Education (Ministry) in the tertiary sector has continued with its
original strategy in 2010. In addition, there is an enhancement to economic
performance through a more qualified labour force across Industries; addressing
at-risk youth which could be attributed to its findings within the Tool
database and finally, promotion of international participation.
It is the latter point
of international participation which is interesting in terms of online
technology considerations. A top-down Government strategy to ‘get with it’ then
two institutes funding related decision to comply has produced a current and
significant condition. As of last week, a combined independent (computing) ICT
entity between two institutions has been created. The implications are unknown
but it does question access to future online technology and the existing
capabilities of current technology between institutions to name but a few
thoughts.
In summary there is a
compulsion towards a constructivist approach to learning and teaching with or
without online technology. The exception criteria of ‘with or without’ is based
on institutional standards of practice and what online technology is permitted
under the branding. Faculty consideration, programme requirements and
employment contracts determines an educator’s access to current technology and
its potential for growth to support student outcomes. That is the point, will successful
student outcomes be served with or without the use of online technology.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: an educational
perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc publishing as Allyn &
Bacon..
Tertiary Education Commission
(TEC). (2010). Tertiary Education
Strategy 2010-2015. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Tertiary Education Commission
(TEC). (2014). Tertiary Education
Strategy 2014-2019. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education and
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/EducationSectors/TertiaryEducation/TertiaryEducationStrategy2014/MOE_TES2014_V9.pdf
Thanks for drawing my attention to the latest TES strategy Kathy – I wasn’t aware of it.
ReplyDeleteThe TEC learning progressions assessment tool is a whole issue in itself isn’t it. Theoretically it’s used for pre and post assessment so that tutor and student can identify knowledge gaps, but I have heard of at least one PTE that also uses it for lesson content. I believe this is to familiarise students with the type of questions generated in hope that they will score more highly in the final-assessment – although the questions do change I guess there is sufficient similarity in content to make this practice worthwhile. “Teaching to the test” is generally frowned upon in education circles, but interestingly St. Clair and Belzer (2007)point out that it can be quite a pragmatic approach!
It does highlight though that the use of digital technology itself does not make lesson content or educational practice any better.
St. Clair, R., & Belzer, A. (2007). The challenges of consistency: National systems for assessment and accountability in adult literacy education. In P. Campbell (Ed.), Measures of success: Assessment and accountability in adult basic education (pp. 159-206). Alberta, Canada: Grass Roots Press.
You have made some interesting comments Kathy. Where I work the assessment tool is also mandatory in much the same way. The border of Step 3 and Step 4 can be of interest because a person on Step 4 could actually really be a high Step 3 given the margin of error yet that Step 4 student may not be tested again. However, I have to agree with as Kieran when he says that the assessment tool is another issue altogether. Although as part of a wider overall reform of education, standardized testing could be seen as just part of a neoliberal reform movement (Small, 2009) along with the lessening of academic influence on university councils for example. As to the government's focus on skills for industry, it seems on the surface a sensible approach. However, it is full of fishhooks. The well-known property tycoon, Bob Jones, is known for his support of arts graduates who he says are trained skilled thinkers and therefore essential for today’s society. “Sir Bob says a humanities degree in the ‘traditional subjects’ provides a broad knowledge frame of reference and develops an inquiring mind and imagination” (Hart, 2007, para.6). In fact, Bob Jones states he avoids those with business degrees. Also, I am not too sure what industries the government has in mind for training as it is not always easy to predict which skills will be required in the years ahead. I guess society will always need plumbers, carpenters and nurses for example, but the needs of other industries may fluctuate. “Educate for industry” is just part of the neoliberal agenda. In the Fourth Labour Government, Small (2009) notes that absent from Douglas’s educational list of changes were the central aims of “social democracy, to promote equality or at least minimize inequality” (p.3). Wilkinson and Pickett (as cited in Small, 2009) state that “almost all problems which are more common at the bottom of the social ladder are more common in unequal societies” and this includes “children’s educational performance” (p.6). As a society we need an informed debate about what type of society we want and how this is best achieved through our education system.
ReplyDeleteReferences:
Hart, S. (2007, February 12). The art of business success. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=10423433
Small, D. (2009, November). Neoliberalism’s fate: Implications for education. Paper presented at 37th Annual Conference of ANZCIES University of New England, Armidale, Australia. Retrieved from http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4719/1/12623584_Neoliberalism%27s%20Fate%20ANZCIES%20Paper.pdf