Dilemmas of pedagogical innovations: The Technologists Verses the Instructional Designers
Wednesday, 27 Feb 2019, 15:39
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Tabitha Naisiko, Wednesday, 30 Oct 2019, 14:47
I do agree Hypothesis 3 which states: “The
choice of eLearning tools should reflect rather than determine the pedagogy of
a course; how technology is used is more important than which technology is
used.” This is because in eLearning I see
technology as a means not an end. In this way, we need to concentrate on the
innovativeness in use of technology to deliver, transmit knowledge than the complexity
of the technology or tool. Besides, technology in the contemporary technological
revolution runs obsolete at a first rate to the extent that if not careful, we
would run a risk of knowledge dissemination crisis
if we prioritised them instead on how to use them.
I also
agree with Hypothesis 5 which states: “eLearning can be used in two major ways;
the presentation of education content, and the facilitation of education
processes.” Given time, as a student of MOEDE I appreciate this hypothesis
because it directly concerns me. I receive the content, know knowledge, skills,
literature etc but I also feel space to explore or train myself as teacher and
teach others (my colleagues, practitioners and students) based on the eLearning
platform of OU. On e-conference on H818 last year where different students were
presenting their researches and innovations, I learnt a lot that was also benchmarked
in my practices as a teacher but also a practitioner.
Hypothesis
7 which states that “eLearning tools and techniques should be used only after
consideration has been given to online vs offline trade-offs” is also in
suitable in my context. For us in developing countries like Uganda where I am
based, we have challenges of irregular electricity and internet. The presence of
these also vary whereby some places do have at a time while others do not. Therefore,
while I prefer to close myself in the house and do my work without disturbance,
at times am compelled to town to download assignments or work elsewhere. In this
case, if I have electricity but not internet, am able to work in my house. This
hypothesis is friendly and practical.
I agree
with Hypothesis 8: Effective eLearning practice considers the ways in which
end-users will engage with the learning opportunities provided to them. This is
because society is dynamic and different, it thus pauses different challenges
and opportunities. This hypothesis allows opportunity of life-long, ongoing
education beyond the tension of passing Tutor’s assignment. eLearning provides
multiple life skills to solve day-to-day challenges within the work
environment.
Finally, I agree with Hypothesis 9: “The
overall aim of education, that is, the development of the learner in the
context of a predetermined curriculum or set of learning objectives, does not
change when eLearning is applied.” This is because as emphasised in the whole paper,
eLearning is just a means to an end, thus the curriculum will be the core in
determining the professionalism required from the e-learner; not the mastery of
technological innovations. Besides, as I observed, technology especially in the
contemporary society runs obsolete so easily, therefore should not be tagged
with the content or mar the curriculum because the content in the curriculum will
still be relevant even under a different platform or new technology.
Consider hypothesis 4 that ‘e-learning
advances primarily through the successful implementation of pedagogical
innovation’. Then post your thoughts to the appropriate thread in your tutor
group forum.
As
Nicholas (2003) quotes Laurillard (2002), instructional designers should drive
eLearning, not technologists. Those who are innovative educators will be those
who maximise eLearning and ensure its further development. Based on Noble
(2008) who argues that through automation of education, the objectives of
education and the education process has been compromised with ethical quandaries
where it has been overtaken by the urge of consumerism. Here, the technicians as
well as industry in education tools are the ones guiding the curriculum designs
with the urge of selling products. This does not only adulterate education
purposes but is burdensome to the teachers and students for they work too much
and too late not only learning technologies but also the required educational
content. As reflected below by Noble (2008), it will be a mess if innovations
in eLearning are left at the hands of the technologists.
On the otherhand, if eLearning
is left to the instructional designers, it is expected that the values,
objectives, and outcomes of education as a career will be upheld and all the
professional demands required of trainers as put forward by the curriculum will
be achieved. In H800, we learnt about learning designs and design narratives. Mor
Yishay on the learning design grid, describes design narrative as a process to
setting an appropriate pedagogy which comes from critical reflection on problem
solving task, basing on extensive information, situation, experiment and
research. The process is not conclusive, it is dynamic and based on this,
design narratives thus inform practitioners on making the choices about the
technologies for their learners. Precisely, pedagogical innovations in eLearning
ought to be left to instructional designers than technologists for they can
abuse the purpose.
Dilemmas of pedagogical innovations: The Technologists Verses the Instructional Designers
I do agree Hypothesis 3 which states: “The choice of eLearning tools should reflect rather than determine the pedagogy of a course; how technology is used is more important than which technology is used.” This is because in eLearning I see technology as a means not an end. In this way, we need to concentrate on the innovativeness in use of technology to deliver, transmit knowledge than the complexity of the technology or tool. Besides, technology in the contemporary technological revolution runs obsolete at a first rate to the extent that if not careful, we would run a risk of knowledge dissemination crisis if we prioritised them instead on how to use them.
I also agree with Hypothesis 5 which states: “eLearning can be used in two major ways; the presentation of education content, and the facilitation of education processes.” Given time, as a student of MOEDE I appreciate this hypothesis because it directly concerns me. I receive the content, know knowledge, skills, literature etc but I also feel space to explore or train myself as teacher and teach others (my colleagues, practitioners and students) based on the eLearning platform of OU. On e-conference on H818 last year where different students were presenting their researches and innovations, I learnt a lot that was also benchmarked in my practices as a teacher but also a practitioner.
Hypothesis 7 which states that “eLearning tools and techniques should be used only after consideration has been given to online vs offline trade-offs” is also in suitable in my context. For us in developing countries like Uganda where I am based, we have challenges of irregular electricity and internet. The presence of these also vary whereby some places do have at a time while others do not. Therefore, while I prefer to close myself in the house and do my work without disturbance, at times am compelled to town to download assignments or work elsewhere. In this case, if I have electricity but not internet, am able to work in my house. This hypothesis is friendly and practical.
I agree with Hypothesis 8: Effective eLearning practice considers the ways in which end-users will engage with the learning opportunities provided to them. This is because society is dynamic and different, it thus pauses different challenges and opportunities. This hypothesis allows opportunity of life-long, ongoing education beyond the tension of passing Tutor’s assignment. eLearning provides multiple life skills to solve day-to-day challenges within the work environment.
Finally, I agree with Hypothesis 9: “The overall aim of education, that is, the development of the learner in the context of a predetermined curriculum or set of learning objectives, does not change when eLearning is applied.” This is because as emphasised in the whole paper, eLearning is just a means to an end, thus the curriculum will be the core in determining the professionalism required from the e-learner; not the mastery of technological innovations. Besides, as I observed, technology especially in the contemporary society runs obsolete so easily, therefore should not be tagged with the content or mar the curriculum because the content in the curriculum will still be relevant even under a different platform or new technology.
Consider hypothesis 4 that ‘e-learning advances primarily through the successful implementation of pedagogical innovation’. Then post your thoughts to the appropriate thread in your tutor group forum.
As Nicholas (2003) quotes Laurillard (2002), instructional designers should drive eLearning, not technologists. Those who are innovative educators will be those who maximise eLearning and ensure its further development. Based on Noble (2008) who argues that through automation of education, the objectives of education and the education process has been compromised with ethical quandaries where it has been overtaken by the urge of consumerism. Here, the technicians as well as industry in education tools are the ones guiding the curriculum designs with the urge of selling products. This does not only adulterate education purposes but is burdensome to the teachers and students for they work too much and too late not only learning technologies but also the required educational content. As reflected below by Noble (2008), it will be a mess if innovations in eLearning are left at the hands of the technologists.
On the otherhand, if eLearning is left to the instructional designers, it is expected that the values, objectives, and outcomes of education as a career will be upheld and all the professional demands required of trainers as put forward by the curriculum will be achieved. In H800, we learnt about learning designs and design narratives. Mor Yishay on the learning design grid, describes design narrative as a process to setting an appropriate pedagogy which comes from critical reflection on problem solving task, basing on extensive information, situation, experiment and research. The process is not conclusive, it is dynamic and based on this, design narratives thus inform practitioners on making the choices about the technologies for their learners. Precisely, pedagogical innovations in eLearning ought to be left to instructional designers than technologists for they can abuse the purpose.