ARE TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS READY FOR ONLINE LEARNING?

• Authors: Eva Dobozy
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Recent reviews of active and participatory learning design are critical of the effectiveness of such strategies, pointing out that students’ participation levels in technology-mediated discussion tasks are generally low. In addition, they note that when students are made to participate, through the attachment of assignment points to participation in online discussions, students become skilled in taking full advantage of the assignment points, without necessarily engaging in deep learning. These reviews point to a disturbing trend in student engagement that needs urgent attention. Does student effort or the lack of it pose an inherent problem for the design of online discussion tasks? Is there a need to factor in students’ ambivalence towards online communicative collaboration when designing LAMS learning tasks? In this paper, I document the use and usefulness of non-assessed discussion forum learning design, discussing the meaning of student content engagement and its relationship to deep learning before reporting preliminary research results that sought to investigate current student engagement with non-assessed learning tasks. My findings illustrate the importance of reassessing current conceptualisation of learning and assessment tasks as a linear progression. Moreover, I conclude that it is counter-productive to ‘make students collaborate’ through the simple attachment of assignment points to tasks, because it rewards compliance rather than learning.

Keywords

EN

teacher education; LAMS; online learning

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 1-15

Contributors

author

Eva Dobozy

• School of Education Edith Cowan University Perth, Australia

References

• Baume, D. & Yorke, M. (2002). The reliability of assessment by portfolio on a course to develop and accredit teacher in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 27 (1), 7-25.
• Biggs, J. (ed.). (1991). Teaching for Learning. Hawthorn, Vic: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Conole, G. & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005 (8), http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2005/08/conole-2005-08.pdf. [viewed 27 Sept 2008].
• Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: patterns, pattern language and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21 (1), 82-101.
• Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Students’ interpretations of learning tasks: Implications for educational design. Proceedings of the ASCILITE 2007 conference, Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/goodyear.pdf [viewed 27 Sept 2008]
• Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989). Critical thinking through controversy. Educational Leadership, 45 (1) 58-64.
• Koper, R. & Oliver, B. (2004). Representing the learning design of units of learning. Education, Technology and Society. 7(3), 97-111.
• Kraus, K. (2005). Engaged, inert, or otherwise occupied? Deconstructing the 21stCentury undergraduate student. Keynote address, James Cook University Symposium. Townsville: James Cook University, 21-22 September.
• Laurillard, D. (2007). Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning. Higher Education. 54 (1) 21-39.
• McLaughlin, M., McGrath, D., Burian-Fitzgerald, M., Lanahan, L., Scotcher, M., Enyart, C. and Salganik, L. (2005). Student Content Engagement as a Construct for the Measurement of Effective Classroom Instruction and Teacher Knowledge. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Schoen, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot: Arena Publishing.
• The Australian Council for Educational Research (2007). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE). Research Report. Melbourne: ACER. http://www.acer.edu.au/ausse/AUSSE_2007InstitutionReport.pdf. [viewed 27 Sept 2008]
• Turner, K., Ireland, L., Krenus, B., & Pointon, L. (2008). Essential Academic Skills. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
• Ziegenfuss, D. & Lawler, P. (2008). Collaborative course design: Changing the process, acknowledging the context, and implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development. 13 (3), 151-160.
• Zeeger, P., Deller-Evans, K., Egege, S., & Klinger, C. (2008). Essential Skills for Science and Technology. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.