E-Pedagogy for the Future - Report Example

E-PEDAGOGY FOR THE FUTURE By Presented to Introduction In this paper, questions pertaining to e-pedagogy as a framework for future e-learning/ e-teaching in schools. It also incorporates a personal account of how thinking about e-pedagogy has developed. E-pedagogy addresses the ways in which student instructors use modern tools to pass on instructions and information to learners. Modern learning has been greatly boosted by various inventions that have influenced the way teachers interact with students. More so, these technological developments have enabled teachers to easily address the issues surrounding disabilities among students with such special conditions as autism. Despite the many advantages that e-learning has brought to the educational system, there are many concerns about it as well. For instance, questions surrounding the future of e-learning in a field that is fast evolving have often dwelt on predictability of future technological advances that will guide the sector. This is where e-pedagogy finds relevance – it addresses the concerns raised by reviewers and critics of e-learning, and attempts to build a bridge between the present and future pedagogical issues by developing a transitional framework (Jeffery and Craft 2004). Using Technology to Help Engagement and Creativity in Schools and Education Some technological approaches used in enhancing creativity and improving engagement levels among students are highly beneficial. This is especially true for modern-day tools such as tablets and iPads. Research into the benefits of using technology to enhance educational input have been riddled with mixed outcomes for some of the methods used (Fullan and Langworthy 2014). For instance, research into the use of television programs as a tool for enhancing fast understanding of concepts by younger cohorts of learners has often been marked with “discouraging” findings. Huffaker (2003) observed that, based on many research studies completed on the relevance of TV of learning outcomes, there was an almost overwhelming agreement that the devices were more likely to cause harm than good. In fact, the findings referred to alluded to a situation where TV often plays a role in reinforcing disengagement among learners. Further research has established that the level of control (including the amount of time young children spend watching TV everyday) needed to sustain the benefits accrued from using the device for enhancing engagement is quite high, a requirement that most busy parents can hardly manage at their homes (Mentis 2008; Huffaker 2003). More recent research has embarked on the use of more portable and trendy devices such as mobile phones and tablets for improving engagement and creativity among students (Tarantino, McDonough and Hua 2013). In contrast to the findings presented earlier about TV and its negative impacts on development of speech, memory and creativity, modern day devices, especially the tablet, have been lauded as having the positive qualities desired by researchers. Often, users are able to download important and simplified apps that can be used for personal learning exercises. Better still, these apps are able to appeal to both the special needs and normal students. Therefore, we have a contrasting body of knowledge about the issue, with apparent relevance to the type of technological devices under focus. As a result of the apparent better ranking of tablets as a tool for enhancing engagement and creativity has seen teaching staff and institutions gradually drift towards their use. Indeed, positive outcomes about the benefits of using iPads and tablet apps in enhancing engagement and creativity are well supported in literature. How Online Learning Can Support Face to Face Teaching Online learning is fast becoming the new way for learners to engage with their teachers. This is because the approach incorporates both convenience and reduction of expenses incurred to set up modalities for students and teachers to attend lectures (Mentis 2008; Larsen and Hoem 2010). Larsen and Hoem (2010) further noted that online learning is more widely in use among the institutions of higher learning, with most teachers in the lower levels of the curriculum still being in favour of traditional methods of engagement. But, their insistence on retaining the face-to-face interaction with learners is underlined in the nature and scope of students at each level of study (Larsen and Hoem 2010; Taylor and Parsons 2011). Generally, students in lower levels of learning are expected to have lesser control over the functioning of devices they use to engage their teachers online. In fact, the only option available for solving the problem – hiring someone to assist the child – is bound to be more expensive. As such, the issue is addressed from the dimension of online face to face learning among lecturers and learners in institutions of higher learning. Various modalities of online learning take into consideration the need for face-to-face contact between the teacher and the learner. For instance, learners using the “Hangouts” option from Google are able to join their colleagues and the instructor in a regulated classroom environment that calls for both attention to instructions and response to course material in a particular setting. The other more common application in use for such online classes is Skype from Microsoft. These two applications can find extensive use in the online delivery of face to face lessons between teachers and students. Communication is fast becoming a necessity for people from around the world to interact. Extrapolating this situation to the online learning environment, learners interact freely with their teachers and colleagues in virtual classrooms that are as interactive as ordinary, physical classes. Based on the discussed apparent benefits of online learning as another way of enhancing face to face interactions between learners and their teachers, e-pedagogy should clearly focus upon the use of suitable tools to enhance content delivery. E-Pedagogy for the Future? Predicting the Impact of Future Technology In response to the question of whether the module should be referred to as e-pedagogy for the future, the answer lies in correct determination of the role of e-pedagogy to the institutionalized framework of curriculum development. Apparently, e-pedagogy attempts to bridge the gap between present and future learning modalities. In the contrary, much practice as taught is still dependent on emerging techniques that only affect the world (in terms of content delivery) at the present. In the event that e-pedagogy successfully links present and future technological frameworks with certainty, the module can henceforth be referred to as “e-pedagogy for the future”. However, the current situation in the application of e-pedagogy is largely a matter of “current solutions to current problems/ developments” (Mehanna 2004). Hence, it would be wrong to refer to the module as “e-pedagogy for the future”. The pace at which every other aspect of our lives is drifting towards use of technology is a pointer into what should be replicated in pedagogy. This is mainly because the curriculum for which pedagogy is developed has also transformed into a technological affair. The need to advance pedagogy into a more adaptive field is captured by Gordon (2014), where he describes various measures that should be put in place in order to bring pedagogy to pace with the technology around it. He noted that pedagogy should be flexible and adaptive, which is the only way to pace alongside the fast evolving world of technology. Some of the immediate concerns of the field should be on ways to modernize to an extent that pedagogy is also able to influence technology Findlay 2004). By influencing technology, predicting the impacts of future technological developments on pedagogy is more certainly assured than in a situation where technology itself shapes pedagogy. This way, technology in the field of pedagogy will evolve in accordance with the developments within the field. That is, developers will influence technology in accordance to the needs of policy drivers and opinions of framework drafters Findlay 2004). Indeed, it is quite easy to predict the impacts of technology, but only through influencing the technology so as to conform to the needs and aspirations of insiders (the framework drafters and implementers). Summary Pedagogy is effectively under modification into e-pedagogy, a more technology guided form of it. As a result, it is important that the present frameworks governing the development and future of pedagogy are aligned with the new technological advancements in the field. Each field of development needs to shape technology to suit its specific needs. This is because if left to be shaped by technology, internal issues troubling any sector cannot de fully addressed, and the field is likely to be always left behind by other fields which fashion technology to suit their needs. For this reason, framework drafters within the field of pedagogy should endeavour to shape developments within their specialty. References Findlay, P. 2004. Effective practice with e-learning: A good guide in designing for learning. Bristol: JISC Development Group. Fullan, M. and Langworthy, M. 2014. A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Gordon, N. 2014. Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning. York: The Higher Education Academy. Huffaker, D. 2003. Reconnecting the classroom: E-learning pedagogy in US public high schools. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 19(3): 356-370. Jeffrey, B. and Craft, A. 2004. Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies. 30(1): 77-87. Larsen, A. K. and Hoem, J. 2010. Promoting the good e-teacher: Didactical choices when developing e-pedagogical competencies. International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning. 10(1). ISSN: 1504-4831. Mehanna, W. N. 2004. E-pedagogy: The pedagogies of e-learning. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology. 12(3): 279-293. Mentis, M. 2008. Navigating the e-learning terrain: Aligning technology, pedagogy and context. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 6(3): 217-226. Tarantino, K., McDonough, J. and Hua, M. 2013. Effects of student engagement with social media on student learning: A review of literature. The Journal of Technology in Student Affairs. Summer 2013 Edition. Taylor, L. and Parsons, J. 2011. Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education. 14(1): 1-33. Read More