An unfinished symphony: 21st century teacher education using ...

4 downloads 759 Views 170KB Size Report
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. British Journal of Educational Technology.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency2006 376825840Original Articles21st century teacher educationBritish Journal of Educational Technology

British Journal of Educational Technology doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00662.x

Vol 37 No 6 2006

825–840

An unfinished symphony: 21st century teacher education using knowledge creating heutagogies

Jean Ashton and Linda Newman Jean Ashton is a lecturer in early childhood education at the University of Western Sydney in New South Wales Australia. Her research interests are metacognition literacy and multiliteracies. She teaches Multiliteracies, Contemporary Perspectives and Literacy. Linda Newman is a senior lecturer in early childhood education at the University of Western Sydney in New South Wales Australia. Her research interests are professional ethics, professional experience and communities of practice. She is the Academic Coordinator of Professional Experience for the early childhood programme and teaches Ethics in Education and Professional Experience. Address for correspondence: Dr Linda Newman, School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797 Penrith South DC, 1797, NSW, Australia. Tel: 61 2 4736 0048; email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract Globalisation has changed the way most people live, work and study in the 21st century. Teachers and teacher educators, like other professionals, must embrace these changes to be effective in their jobs and one ongoing change is the use of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) for lifelong learning. In this paper we describe how one group of academics in a university programme preparing new teachers has embraced change to introduce innovative programmes using ICTs and heutagogy rather than pedagogy. Heutagogy prepares students for the self-determined lifelong learning which is essential for survival in a 21st century world.

Introduction In a complex and rapidly changing globalised world it is critically important that teachers and teacher educators engage in debate, decision making, new knowledge creation and action for change. In this paper we discuss how the need for change has been embraced to inform and reframe practice. We showcase some elements of teacher education at the University of Western Sydney (UWS) in New South Wales, Australia. A heutagogical rather than a pedagogical model for knowledge creating has been chosen as the core teaching methodology around which our programmes have been reframed. In outlining the rationale for our changed approaches we briefly discuss some factors influencing knowledge sharing in communities of practice. We comment on the research that led to an exploration and adoption of heutagogy, or self-determined learning, which we feel better facilitates desirable graduate teacher outcomes and prepares educators ready to take their place in the 21st century globalised knowledge economy. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

826

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

In this paper we put forward the case that heutagogy provides an enriched teaching methodology for lifelong learning in universities in the 21st century. This is supported by evidence about changes in society. Our evidence is drawn from literature on globalisation, knowledge creation and the use of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) for teaching and learning, as well as our own local research with our students and other stakeholders. The conceptual framework upon which our work is drawn is one of social justice, power sharing and an ethic of care. The context In 2004, the Early Childhood team reframed its teacher education programmes in line with other education programmes at the UWS. New courses began implementation in 2005 and in 2006 several units in one of the programmes were introduced in flexible and blended delivery mode. Flexible and blended delivery offers e-learning processes and tools such as web links, email, online content modules, online quizzes, assignment exchange and discussions, along with traditional classroom interactions (Collis & Moonen, 2001; Marsh, 2001). This means that students need no longer be tied by the demands of face to face instruction in every unit, every week. The flexibility associated with flexible and blended modes of delivery gives students time to work and attend to life’s other demands while, as Marsh (2001) suggests, increasing their learning and improving retention rates, in a comprehensive and cost-effective manner. Increased flexibility, however, carries with it increased responsibility and the need for independence, which we have addressed within our planning. The introduction of new teaching courses and methodologies followed considerable research with students, early childhood centre directors, employer groups and academic staff. We thoroughly and extensively examined our personal philosophies of teaching and those underpinning flexible and blended delivery. Individual units were mapped to ensure congruence between course objectives, content material, teaching resources and assessment tasks. Programme delivery was reframed and unit e-learning sites were built on the university’s e-learning platform Web Course Tools (WebCT) with embedded content, quizzes and other stimulating materials to encourage questioning and reflection. As part of our strategic rationale for flexible and blended delivery, we recognised the potential for blended learning to break down the barriers between the university and the profession by engaging educators from the wider field, opening up the possibility for lifelong learning, online professional development, partnerships and research with employer groups, early childhood centre staff and other training providers. In an environment where there is a high demand for graduates at diploma level to upgrade their existing qualifications to become degree-level teachers, flexible and blended delivery allows some students to continue working as they engage in their university studies. Flexible and blended delivery also sits well with the university’s imperative to reduce costs and increase proficiency. This is vital when undertaking major changes, according to Yetton, Sharma and Southon (1997), who note that institutional factors and support © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

21st century teacher education

827

are crucial when implementing online learning. Online learning can be driven by individuals or small teams to meet their personal interests, or to meet the objectives set down by partners engaged in joint research. However, it is only when online learning is truly meaningful to the university that it will have positive impact upon planning. In line then with the university’s goals, and with support from the Head of School and the team from the university’s Educational Development Centre, flexible and blended delivery modes were introduced. A more extensive discussion of our rationale and flexible and blended learning framework is outlined in Newman and Ashton (2006). However, while the introduction of flexible and blended delivery was strategic and timely, one critical aspect, not clearly articulated in most of the literature we studied related to flexible learning approaches, was an educational rationale or revised methodology to guide necessary changes in pedagogy. To meet the lifelong learning and knowledge demands for university graduates preparing for employment in a globalised early childhood market, traditional top-down teaching models, with teacher selected information, and teacher direction and delivery, were no longer deemed appropriate. We needed to reframe the pedagogy underpinning our use of flexible and blended modes of teaching and to avoid merely focusing on technology as a novelty at the expense of deep understanding of its potential for learning (Collis & Moonen, 2001). Reframing early childhood teacher education using heutagogy for knowledge creation and lifelong learning All professionals now need to be lifelong learners. Education for lifelong learning is more than just education and training beyond formal schooling. A lifelong learning framework encompasses learning throughout the life cycle, from birth to grave and in different learning environments, formal, non-formal and informal (The World Bank Group, 2003, p. xiii). Lifelong learners are concerned with continually developing themselves and others. They encompass a whole of learning philosophy towards people, workplaces and communities in order to succeed in life. They continually try to update their skills, challenge their own beliefs, assess their own abilities and expose themselves to current thinking (Lifelong Learning, 2006). Lifelong learners in our current knowledge-based economy need to develop ideas rather than physical abilities and develop skills in the application of technology rather than the transformation of raw materials. The World Bank emphasises that: The knowledge economy relies on information that is created, acquired, transmitted, and used more effectively by individuals, enterprises, organizations and communities to promote economic and social development (World Bank, 1998d; World Bank Institute, 2001c)... . Knowledge can either be codified and written down or tacit and in people’s heads... . Where new technologies have been introduced, demand for high-skilled workers, particularly high-skilled information and communication technology (ICT) workers, has increased. At the same time, demand for lowerskilled workers has declined (OECD, 2001f) (The World Bank Group, 2003, p. 1)

Early childhood teacher education programmes must encourage students to develop the dispositions, knowledges and skills expected of lifelong learners in 21st century workplaces (Tolhurst, 2002). To facilitate lifelong learning and the ability to thrive in blended © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

828

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

learning environments, it became clear that a new ‘-gogy’ or teaching approach was necessary for our courses. For educators pedagogy has been thought of as what we do. However, a critique of our teaching methodology and philosophy revealed that perhaps this needed rethinking. While there are many ‘-gogies’ (Greek meaning leader of ) including pedagogy (teaching children), andragogy (teaching adults), ergonogy (teaching people to work) and ubuntugogy (African philosophy/way of life and educational paradigm undergirded by humanity towards others) (Bangura, 2005, para. 1), none effectively captured the way in which knowledge needs to be created in a globalised world. Pedagogy, now understood as the art or profession of teaching or preparatory training or instruction, is derived from the Greek paidagogia from Paidagogos, a slave who took children to and from school (The Free Dictionary, 2006). Pedagogy today means the art or science of educating children, and is used widely as a synonym for teaching (Kennedy & Surman, 2006). The pedagogue (teacher) assumes responsibility for deciding what will be learned, and when it will be learned (Conner, 2006, para. 2), the implication being that learners have neither the means nor the ability to learn on their own (Bangura, 2005, para. 2). Ironically, none of the great teachers from Confucius to Plato were so authoritarian. Indeed, seminal pedagogues like Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel and Montessori believed in learning through the senses and experience (Conner, 2006; Morrison, 2006). The real meaning of ‘pedagogy’ therefore seems to have shifted somewhat to rest in today’s taken for granted paradigm of teacher authority and control even though eminent educators such as Dewey problematised authoritarian instruction. Dewey’s model of learner-focused education placed the learner at the centre of the learning process, encouraging self-management and a high degree of self-efficacy that is not evident in most classrooms today. In 1926 the American Association for Adult Education was formed as an outcome of the shift away from teacher controlled learning (Conner, 2006). It was Knowles (1970, 1984), however, who recognised the differences in the way adults and children learn and his work on andragogy, originally defined as the art and science of helping adult learners, became an important landmark in the way adult education was effected. Knowles’ work draws on humanistic traditions and assumes that as adults develop an autonomous sense of self they shun dependency for independent capability. Andragogic paradigms treat education more as doing in the present than preparation for the future. Bangura notes that there is less of a distinction between teacher and learner from an andragogic perspective than with pedagogic approaches (Bangura, 2005, p. 10). Recently andragogy has come to refer to learner-focused education for people of all ages (Conner, 2006). However, while andragogy and the principles of adult learning upon which it was based, transformed face to face teaching, another ‘-gogy’, heutagogy or self-determined learning, has now emerged to revolutionise knowledge creating. It was the seminal research of Hase and others (Coughlan, 2004; Davis & Hase, 1999; Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Kenyon & Hase, 2001) which drew our attention to the need for different models and new paradigms. The thesis underpinning their work is that © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

21st century teacher education

829

people learn from a full range of life experiences and that educators must be guides to the development of ideas rather than force-feed the wisdom of others (Coughlan, 2004; Findlay, 2002). Hase and his colleagues place the responsibility for knowledge appropriation using a heutagogical model very clearly with the learner. Underpinning this notion is Rogers’ (2006) hypothesis which promotes the idea of relationship in teaching. He says that we cannot teach another person directly, rather we can only facilitate his/her learning. Furthermore, the structure and organization of the self appears to become more rigid under threat, but tends to relax its boundaries when completely free from threat. Finally, the educational situation which most effectively promotes significant learning is one in which (1) threat to the self of the learner is reduced to a minimum, and (2) differentiated perception of the field of experience is facilitated. In an age of rapid change and information explosion, we believe that heutagogy rather than pedagogy is more likely to facilitate the skills and dispositions required of 21st century early childhood educators who work with both children and their families. Teacher education students today need to be encouraged to be trouble shooters, problem solvers and general consultants, recognising the capability of learners of all ages to build their own knowledge and understanding. Learners educated within a heutagogical framework develop confidence in their perceptions and learn to question interpretations of reality from their position of competence. This differentiates teaching between traditional and newer methods. The former acknowledges teachers’ power, where learners are passive and dependent, in compulsory learning environments, receiving transmitted knowledge (Bangura, 2005). Newer methods assume learner competence and greater independence. Hase and his colleagues (Davis & Hase, 1999; Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Kenyon & Hase, 2001) see heutagogy as evolutionary, naturally progressing from earlier educational methodologies. Heutagogy reflects the changed world in which learning takes place and recognises the complex array of skills required for today’s different kind of workplace. The heutagogy revolution according to Kenyon and Hase (2001) is driven by the wealth of readily accessible information made available by ICTs in a global world. Hase and Kenyon (2000) note that this global world is no place for the inflexible, the unprepared, and the ostrich with head in the sand (p. 5). Therefore, today’s teacher educators must develop students’ capabilities, not just their skills and knowledge, and in so doing they must relinquish some power. In the 21st century knowledge sharing is needed, not knowledge hoarding. Other descriptors of heutagogy include: self determined knowledge sharing of content and resources; self-actualising; creating new knowledge from existing experience; ‘all around’ capability; [and] empowerment (Mullinax, 2006, para. 8). Heutagogy then looks to a future where knowing how to learn will be a fundamental educational skill. Programme reframing methodology Getting started The academics involved in the early childhood programmes at UWS drew together as a team to consider the imperatives for change and the theories underpinning it, and to © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

830

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

examine the possibilities for new distinctive, innovative and dynamic courses. While the possibilities appeared exciting, the challenges appeared somewhat daunting. Most academic staff were accustomed to traditional pedagogies, using technology such as PowerPoint or video in their teaching occasionally. This created an ethical tension as we implemented an ethic of care-based decision to promote globalised heutagogical technology-based learning methods with our students while at the same time struggling personally with the necessity to upgrade our own ICT capabilities and teaching methods. As discussion progressed, tentative inquiries of others into the possibility of collaboration grew to the creation of knowledge networks (Augier & Thanning Vendelo, 1999; Contractor & Monge, 2002) involving individuals and teams with funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez, 1992) from within and across the university and the wider profession. Training workshops After an initial meeting we examined our own ICT knowledge and skills and then held a training workshop in which the use of technology for teaching was demonstrated. Coursework developers from the university’s Educational Development Centre and several independent technology professionals with expertise in developing online course materials for other educational institutions attended this meeting. Also in attendance was the Pro Vice-Chancellor Quality who outlined his vision for the kinds of programmes necessary in a modern, innovative university. A professional partner from a technology company who had previously engaged in a project with UWS and a local child care provider were also present. As a team we were given an opportunity to experience the use of some of the technologies at this workshop and to express our thoughts and apprehensions. Embarking on research To facilitate capability among our students and to ensure that their unique contexts were understood, our research looked at the competing priorities in their lives including study, work, family and cultural activities. We investigated students’ perceptions of flexible and blended approaches to learning as well as their knowledge and use of ICTs. We explored early childhood centre directors’ and employer groups’ capabilities with ICTs and their willingness to support their employees or potential employees’ university experience, and we examined the research about new pedagogies, online and e-learning initiatives. Finally, as an early childhood team, we set about either upgrading, refreshing, or in some cases, developing our own skills with ICTs. Questionnaires were distributed to students (n = 80 of a total 110 enrolled), to staff in children’s services (n = 16 settings; 30 staff ), employers (n = 4) and to university staff (n = 8 at the time of the study). Telephone calls to employers of early childhood trained staff were made following the return of questionnaires. This enabled the researchers to clarify issues and the employers to elaborate on their previous responses or check those should they wish to do so. In addition to this, following completion of the questionnaires, two focus groups were held with students (n = 35 in total) eager to discuss their university and life experiences further. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

21st century teacher education

831

We used questionnaires because of their potential to provide information about participants’ perceptions and general demographics (Fraenkel, 2006), and focus groups to enable students to elaborate on their responses in the questionnaires. The focus groups provided a non-threatening environment in which participants were able to share ideas and perceptions, and to influence and be influenced by others’ ideas and the synergy of the group. This added depth and insight to the focused discussion (Anderson, 1990; Krueger, 1994). An analysis of the questionnaires, records of telephone conversations and focus groups enabled trends and patterns evident in participants’ experiences to be identified. We achieved a high response from the student questionnaires (n = 67, 61%), and the academic staff (n = 8, 100%). The results of our investigations with staff and employers are reported elsewhere in the literature (Arthur, 2005; Beecher, 2005). For our introduction of flexible and blended heutagogy, however, we have drawn heavily on our research with our students and the academic team. These findings are reported in the next section. Using our research for developing knowledge creating heutagogy A number of equity issues surfaced regarding the complex realities of students’ lives, their access to technologies, support for their learning in the workplace and their preferences for course delivery (Ashton & Elliott, 2005). The findings indicated that students are committed to their studies in spite of multifaceted life circumstances. We found for example, that 97% of our students work in addition to study, and that students travel many hours to take part in lectures and tutorials. An increasing number are mature learners, and some students have responsibility for parents, children, siblings and other family members. In spite of the extensive travel required, however, students still preferred some face to face contact with staff rather than moving to an exclusively e-learning environment. To our surprise, we found that many students had limited previous exposure to Internet facilities, in spite of their status as the ‘net-generation’ (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). They saw the most concerning aspect of their university study as their ability to meet the academic standards required (Ashton & Elliott, 2006). This is important when offering courses in which learners take responsibility for their own knowledge creating. Research with the academic team also highlighted a number of issues. It demonstrated that irrespective of the challenges, academics at UWS are strong advocates for early childhood education and are committed to offering creative courses in teacher education programmes. The questionnaires for the UWS team indicated that while a few academics were confident with the use of ICTs and used them regularly in their personal and professional lives, others were limited to the use of email and some web-based materials as an adjunct to their face to face teaching. It was evident that many staff needed to learn how to use or upgrade their use of WebCT and with assistance from our Educational Development Centre, we designed, developed and resourced our new reframed programmes. This became a process which engaged all members of the academic team who were encouraged to work on developing the materials for their own subject areas. Bianco, Collis, Cooke and Margaryan (2002) note the importance of © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

832

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

providing incentives for staff and ongoing support as they work in an online environment. This was considered essential in our case. Most staff now engage in increasingly sophisticated WebCT-based discussions, questions and answers, online office time, quizzes, online lectures, podcast lectures and the ongoing development of a resource database. In addition to this, our unit sites now have a course look and feel that includes a unique design for each unit based on unit and course philosophies. The homepage, PowerPoint template for lectures, Word template for unit outlines and templates for e-learning-based content all reflect the design for the unit. A Hub site for the early childhood course also contains an image database, a bank of children’s stories with accompanying recorded explanatory dialogue and other resources. All staff have access to the resources developed by individual team members. As we continue to develop and add to our tools and resources, we are becoming better equipped to design elements which support our heutagogical approach to teaching and learning and which encourage students to take greater responsibility in the learning process. Increasingly, we will encourage students to add to the resource collections. We have begun to develop a library of scanned student professional portfolios for reference and demonstration purposes, and during recent professional experience fieldwork we encouraged students to share resources online. Students are now able to communicate effectively, synchronously or asynchronously, with each other and with staff. Some academics have been troubled by the demands of change, fearful of relinquishing power to students and anxious about their ability to meet the challenges associated with flexible and blended learning. The speed at which change has occurred and the need for a greater array of technological skills than most possessed at the time has been daunting. Ironically, even some of the early childhood students reported reluctance to engage with technology for learning online (unreported focus group data, Elliott & Ashton, 2005) despite their ‘net-generation status,’ and this was examined by the team as an ethical issue. Based on our reflexive decision to promote quality early childhood education for our students and their future clients, and our ethic of care, we decided that the possible reluctance and short-term financial burdens of some students needed to be balanced against the bigger picture of working and learning in a globalised world (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). Mindful therefore, of local and global imperatives, all academics in the team have engaged in processes of reflection, research and retraining, scaffolding and encouraging each other as we embraced the reframing of the early childhood programmes with professionalism and determination. The research underpinning programme changes and collaboration to clarify personal and team philosophies led to a clear vision for future courses. Some snapshots of our flexible and blended heutagogy These are early days for the team and a thorough evaluation of the heutagogy implemented, how this has impacted on students and some of the achievements, triumphs © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

21st century teacher education

833

and challenges associated with the programme have yet to be conducted. It is pertinent to note here a synthesis of some student feedback, collected from interviews. For first semester 2006, the academic team developed two of the four units on offer in the Bachelor of Early Childhood Studies programme in flexible and blended mode. The units Multiliteracies and Contemporary Perspectives were redesigned to take account of the theoretical concepts, desired outcomes, assessment and academic supports required. This involved a comprehensive mapping process, which examined relationships between the main concepts to be taught, unit content, opportunities to work collaboratively and individually and assessment tasks and procedures (see Figure 1, Mapping Multiliteracies—Learning Sequence design). Figure 1 gives a glimpse of the map of key modules in the Multiliteracies unit, including sub-modules, key ideas, resources, learning tools, assessments and students’ responsibility with regard to the learning process. As the map indicates, students are expected to undertake personal study, collaborative learning activities and independent research, and the map clearly indicates how each task or series of tasks relate to assessment. Moreover, support for students’ developing academic skills offered by the Learning Skills Unit and/or lecturers is also shown on the map. Lectures supporting students’ understandings about critical reading, referencing, writing an argument, library research, essay writing, preparing presentations and reflecting are embedded in the unit content. One group of students taking the unit Multiliteracies had already completed diplomalevel study elsewhere. As mature students, many with families, their life circumstances appear more complex than those of many other students, especially recent school leavers. Diploma-level students have traditionally struggled with academic work at university, and therefore a new programme was specifically designed for them. For this cohort the semester began with an intensive week of workshops involving most staff and all students. During this time, our expectations regarding heutagogy and students’ need to take responsibility for their own knowledge creation were articulated and we worked together on the university’s e-learning platform, WebCT, to strengthen or develop our skills. Collis and Moonen (2001) believe that if students are going to be self-directed learners benefiting from online learning environments, whether on or off campus, they need to be guided and supported to develop this capability. Sessions were grounded in discussion about knowledge expectations in today’s world and the need for students to be fluent in technology (FIT), if they are to be relevant teachers in contemporary early childhood services (Moore, Moore & Fowler, 2005). Tutorial/discussion groups were also formed at this time, based on students’ residential location. Flexible and blended heutagogies allow students to share information garnered from their research, contribute to discussion threads, and post new understandings online while meeting regularly with others living close by. One of the reasons for this was to alleviate what McDonald, Stuckey, Noakes and Nyrop (2005) note as the potential for online learners to feel disconnected and isolated which has been found to impact their levels of participation, satisfaction and learning. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

834

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

Figure 1: Mapping diagram for multiliteracies unit

With this in mind, the professional experience units, core elements in the graduate Master of Teaching (Early Childhood) were also reframed to take advantage of geographic hubs where students engaged in professional experience in small groups, for the duration of the semester. Here, ever decreasing sized groups, nested within what we have termed geohubs, meet at intervals with academic staff, and field-based teacher educators (FBTEs) in whose services students are located for professional experience in © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

21st century teacher education

835

communities of practice (Wenger, 2006). Settings chosen for participation are clustered within employing organisations (such as local councils). Partner organisations have all volunteered for involvement and were selected on their reputation for having high quality early childhood centres. Small geohub groups are nested within increasingly larger groups to develop knowledge networks to access funds of knowledge within and across the members (Moll et al, 1992). Knowledge is produced and flows through diffuse and distributed networks collaboratively with the knowledge broker encouraging a sharing of expertise and a testing of the validity of previously uncontested knowledge claims (Contractor & Monge, 2002). Heutagogy means that educators can no longer be knowledge givers or knowledge transmitters. As knowledge brokers, however, academics must link and share knowledge, in communities of practice. In the geohubs, knowledge is shared among students, but also extends the knowledge of their university educators and FBTE as well. Unfinished symphonies have no conclusions In essence, the key changes in our planning, programmes and delivery can be summarised thus. We have: 1. re-envisioned our conceptual base, examined our students and ourselves and reflected on our personal and group teaching philosophies; 2. set up a process for mapping our entire course and all units embedded within it; 3. embedded learning skills and ICT based approaches into units; 4. outlined the maps already completed for staff and students, who must take responsibility for learning at each point in order for student success in each unit; 5. given students some responsibility for their personal and group learning while initially scaffolding them in this process; 6. acknowledged that staff can learn much from students and that students can teach each other; 7. recognised the value of online teaching to give greater transparency and offer greater support than traditional teaching modes; 8. acknowledged students’ need for face to face interactions alongside online heutagogies; and 9. engaged the professional field in planning and decision making. Even given the imperatives driving the heutagogical model, there are still challenges to overcome. For example, within a heutagogical frame, students should be able to plan their own assessments (Hase & Kenyon, 2000). However, given the number of students in teacher education courses, this is a challenge not yet addressed. Moreover, when we are planning for students to take greater responsibility for their own learning, we need to be mindful of the work of Collis, Winnips and Moonen (2000). In a small study where students were given the choice of participation types, they found that while there was no significant difference on performance, the students who had opted for a structured support approach where they were required to submit work via the WWW spent considerably more time on their course than students who engaged in a learner choice © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

836

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

approach. This inevitably opens up debate about whether or not we are over-teaching and over-assessing, especially given that Collis et al’s (2000) study indicated that teaching staff spent almost three times longer than usual in teaching online than they had using traditional pedagogies. Moreover, while a number of our students are competent with ICTs, reinforcing Stacey’s (1997) research, others still have limited knowledge and use of ICTs, including students who do not even have immediate or convenient access to a computer. Some students have outdated computers, without the capacity to support the software required to access the Internet and the web-based instruction platform satisfactorily. Even the early childhood centres in one Professional Experience Geohub have no computers. A great many inquiries posted in online discussions centre on students’ inability to access web links, online readings, movies, advertising sites and web-based popular culture, which present some serious equity issues for consideration. In some of our conversations to date with students we hear that they cannot ‘open [the weblinks],’ ‘there are problems linking to website,’ ‘we need to open too many links at one time’ and ‘had difficulty accessing PowerPoint lectures.’ Another factor for some students is the cost and speed of online learning. They indicated that there are problems with ‘slow download connections,’ ‘large download space required which takes a long time to do work’ and ‘discussions are very expensive.’ Another challenge to flexible and blended heutagogy has been the distance travelled by some students (up to five hours for face to face sessions), and the spread of the student population across greater Sydney. With perhaps only one or two students in an area, the formation of the geohubs (for professional experience) and tutorials (for Multiliteracies) for both online and face to face collaboration, has not been easy. Nonetheless, flexible and blended heutagogy has already significantly reduced students’ travel time to two days per week for university, allowing many students to continue working. For example, recent comments indicate that ‘You can do it [online work] at your own convenience which allows for work as well,’ ‘can work at any time, even 1.00 a.m.,’ ‘can access information quickly and efficiently’ which ‘allows students to maintain employment.’ It would appear that the overwhelming benefits that flexible and blended learning have brought to knowledge creating through collaboration within communities of practice far outweighs any administrative challenges posed by its management. It has also been encouraging to see students embracing online discussions in their Geohubs and enthusiastically engaging with FBTEs in communities of practice. A look at posted discussions online and initial conversations with students as they reached the end of the semester suggests that considerably more thought has been given to readings and module content than is often evident in face to face tutorials. For example one student said that discussions online are ‘really relevant and promoted critical thinking and analysis.’ Others said, ‘already I can see different knowledges emerging’ and ‘when given new skills you view things from a conceptual viewpoint and I now look at things differently.’ © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

21st century teacher education

837

This is consistent with research (McDonald et al, 2005; Purnell, Callan, Whymark & Gralton, 2004; Stacey, 1997) which indicates that working online increases learning by allowing students to interact more intimately and to engage in activity which encourages closeness. An exciting outcome has been the way students have scaffolded each others’ learning, as they have responded online to questions, statements and suggestions made about discussion topics, tasks and readings. Examples include, ‘it was good to share and express ideas and opinions,’ ‘you could ask questions and get broad discussion straight away’ and ‘there was a good support system from other students.’ Students noted that ‘shared discussion was a positive learning tool,’ ‘interactions with peers were valuable and helped gain a different perspective’ and ‘gaining others’ points of view on images was so useful.’ Irrespective therefore of their location, academics and students alike in a knowledge creating process using ICTs, take on the goal of addressing the entire groups’ learning needs (Purnell et al, 2004) in a manner not always clearly seen in face to face learning environments. The next chord... We have reconceptualised ourselves as academics. We believe that we must move beyond being andragogues or pedagogues, to become knowledge brokers or heutagogues, using ICTs in a technologically resourced world. As an academic team we have experienced challenges. However buoyed by our personal and collective triumphs, we move forward. We have so far reframed both the content and delivery of two units using a flexible and blended heutagogical model with a range of ICTs. More flexible and blended units are planned for implementation in 2006 and 2007. Although some staff have had difficulties letting go the reigns and relinquishing control over what, how and when students learn, our personal ICT skills have been developed and much has been learned and embraced about the way in which knowledge is conceptualised and teaching is effected today. We have, as O’Brien (2002) suggests, grounded our philosophies in social constructivist theory and developed new, sophisticated epistemologies and pedagogies for a new era. The heutagogy described in this paper has evolved within the contradictions of being [in an] institution(s) disciplined by the nation-state (Kell, Shore & Singh, 2004, p. xxi), and being able to exercise our creativity to develop what is one of the most distinctive early childhood programmes in Australia has been reinvigorating. As a team we have been exposed to a global/local consciousness of adult learners and our capacity for analytical and strategic thinking (Kell et al, 2004, p. xix) has been strengthened in the process. Flexible and blended heutagogy, using ICTs for lifelong learning places the learner at the centre of the learning process. This potentially engages both learners and teachers in real and deep partnership within communities of practice. Coughlan (2004) believes that collaborative knowledge creating, effected in this manner is a deeply empowering process for all learners, including some who may be otherwise disengaged from the © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

838

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

learning process. This is an imperative if we are to engage learners in lifelong processes, which equip them to take their place in the rapidly changing 21st century globalised world.

References Anderson, G. (1990). Fundamentals of educational research. UK: Farmer Press. Arthur, L. (2005, September). Reconceptualising early childhood courses to meet the changing demands of students and early childhood settings. Paper presented at Early Childhood Australia Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Ashton, J. & Elliott, R. (2006). Study, work, rest and play: juggling the priorities of students’ lives. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Manuscript under review. Ashton, J. & Elliott, R. (2005, August 31–September 3). Living to study or studying to live: the changing structure and priorities of students’ lives. Paper presented at the European Early Childhood Educational Research Conference, Dublin, Ireland. Augier, M. & Thanning Vendelo, M. (1999). Networks, cognition and management of tacit knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 4, 242–261. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/ EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2300030402.pdf. Bangura, A. K. (2005). Ubuntugogy: an African educational paradigm that transcends pedagogy, andragogy, ergonagy and heutagogy. Journal of Third World Studies, Fall, 1–24. Retrieved March 27, 2006, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200510/ ai_n15641218. Beecher, B. (2005 August 31–September 3). Beyond the fridge door. Moving early childhood pedagogies into new times: issue, challenges and potentials. Paper presented at European Early Childhood Educational Research Association Conference, Dublin, Ireland. Bianco, M., Collis, B., Cooke, A. & Margaryan, A. (2002). Instructor support for new learning approaches involving technology. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://www.users.gw.utwente. nl/margaryan/fulltexts/SEDI_article_16-07-02.pdf. Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page. Collis, B., Winnips, K. & Moonen, J. (2000). Structured support versus learner choice via the world wide web (WWW): where is the payoff? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 2, 131–162. Conner, M. (2006). Andragogy and pedagogy. Ageless Learner. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://www.agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.html. Contractor, N. S. & Monge, P. R. (2002). Managing knowledge networks. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 249–258. Coughlan, R. (2004). From the challenge to the response. BITE Project Conference Proceedings. Adastral Park, December, 2004. Davis, L. & Hase, S. (1999). Developing capable employees: the work activity briefing. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11, 8, 298–303. Elliott, R. & Ashton, J. (2005). Unpublished focus group data from student research. Findlay, J. (2002) Learning in teams using collaborative tools that scaffold facilitation, knowledge creation and thinking skills. Learning Technology Newsletter, 4, 1. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/january2002/index.html#5. Fraenkel, J. R. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. ultiBASE publication. Retrieved January 8, 2005, from http://www.ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm. Kell, P., Shore, S. & Singh, M. (Eds) (2004). Adult education@21st century. New York: Peter Lang. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

21st century teacher education

839

Kennedy, A. & Surman, L. (2006). The pedagogy of relationships. In M. Fleer, S. Edwards, M. Hammer, A. Ridgway, J. Robbins & L. Surman (Eds), Early childhood learning communities: sociocultural research in practice. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. Kenyon, C. & Hase, S. (2001). Moving from andragogy to heutagogy in vocational education. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.avetra.org.au/abstracts_and_papers_2001/HaseKenyon_full.pdf. Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: andragogy versus pedagogy. New York: Associated Press. Knowles, M. (1984). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. New York: Cambridge Books. Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. London: Sage. Lifelong Learning (2006). Homepage. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.lifelonglearning. com.au/learning/lifelong. Marsh, J. (2001). How to design effective blended learning. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://www.brandonhall.com/public/execsums/execsum_blended.pdf. McDonald, B., Stuckey, B., Noakes, N. & Nyrop, S. (2005). Breaking down learner isolation: how social network analysis informs design and facilitation for online learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, Montreal, Canada. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 2, 132–141. Moore, A., Moore, J. & Fowler, S. (2005). Faculty development for the net generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the net generation. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from Educause http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101a.pdf. Morrison, G. (2006). Fundamentals of early childhood education (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Mullinax, S. (2006). Collaborative Online Glossary. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http:// www.cedir.uow.edu.au/deploy/cog_demo/terms.html. Newman, L. & Ashton, J. (2006). Early childhood responses to globalised learning. Flexible and blended delivery in communities of practice. Manuscript in preparation. Newman, L. & Pollnitz, L. (2005). Working with children and families: professional, legal and ethical issues. Sydney: Pearson Prentice Hall. Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation. Educause, pp. 1–264. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101a.pdf. O’Brien, M. (2002, December 2–6). New pedagogies in the knowledge society: why this change is an epistemological one. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education International Conference, Brisbane, Australia. OECD. (2001f ). OECD science, technology, and industry scoreboard: Towards a knowledge-based economy. Paris. Purnell, K., Callan, J., Whymark, G. & Gralton, A. (2004). Managing learner interactivity: a precursor to knowledge exchange. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 1, 2, 32–44. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.sleid.cqu.edu.au/. Rogers, C. R. (2006). Carl Rogers, core conditions and education. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm. Stacey, E. (1997). A virtual campus: the experience of postgraduate students studying through electronic communication and resource access. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www. ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec97/stace1.htm. The Free Dictionary. (2006). Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ pedagogy. The World Bank Group (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy. Challenges for developing countries. A World Bank Report. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www1.worldbank.org/ education/lifelong_learning/conceptual_framework.asp. Tolhurst, D. (2002). Students’ epistemological beliefs and the learning of introductory computing concepts. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds), In Proceedings of Ed-Media 2002 World Conference © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

840

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Denver, CO, June 24–29, 2002 (pp. 1961–1966). Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice. A brief introduction. Retrieved July 23, 2006 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm. World Bank. (1998d). World Development Report. Washington, D.C. World Bank Institute. (2001c). Brazil: Secondary Education Profile. Human Development Network, Education Group, Washington, D.C. Yetton, P., Sharma, R. & Southon, G. (1997). Successful IS innovation: the contingent contributions of innovation characteristics and implementation processes. In K. Kumar & J. I. De Gross (Eds), In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–20. Atlanta: GA.

© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.