Knowledge is a Vehicle – Pedagogical and Technological Changes Drive that Vehicle

22 April 2012

Written by Lorraine Taylor

11052568 - Massey University

In reflecting on the readings and discussions in Module Two, it is apparent that there is a need to rethink pedagogy in order to replace the learner as consumer and move towards learners as ‘prosumers’ (McLoughlin, 2008).  A ‘prosumer’ refers to learners that produce and consume information. Knowledge is not valuable in a static form, but is valuable when it is shared, when it becomes a vehicle.  Today, knowledge and information are in abundance (McCoombs, 2005) and are in constant movement as people consume and produce information in increasingly technologically, collaborative and mobile ways. I continually query how effective learning can be supported in a workplace environment.  O’Reilly (2007) insists that the effective use of Web 2.0 tools within workplace environments implies that users are trusted to be co-developers. Encouragement of creativity and innovation is essential to encourage productivity as part of a learning culture in any business environment.

The openness of Web 2.0 implies an ‘architecture of participation’ (McLoughlin, 2008; O'Reilly, 2007) which realizes that communities are more valuable and productive when there is a sharing of ideas and when members consume and produce collectively. It is important to note that Web 2.0 technologies are providing a platform conducive to ‘prosumers’ but this cannot be assumed that this readily occurs.  In discussing workplace learning in a Project Management course it is apparent that not all work environments are conducive to effective uses of technology. It is essential that continual research occurs (McCoombs, 2005) into how effective pedagogy will become an efficient framework in developing learning activities and environments that engage learners in social processes of knowledge creation. A newly defined pedagogy cannot be dependent on technology but needs to capitalizes on the abundance of tools that support user autonomy, increased levels of socialization and interactivity, access to open communities, and peer-to-peer networking (McLoughlin, 2008, p. 15). In my personal experience and previous teaching experience, it is imperative that proper scaffolding for the incorporation of new technologies are available to ensure efficient use.

Learner-centeredness is important in developing a pedagogical framework for today’s learners.  Motivation increases when learners are offered options (McLoughlin, 2008) and are able to link meaningful tasks to goals and interests (Hartnett, 2011; McCoombs, 2005). More research is needed to identify clearly how learner-centeredness leads to defined learner achievement which will promote transfer of learning (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1995). This will be particularly important in designing workplace learning environments as technology continues to afford new ways for learners to interact with other learners, instructors, content and technological interfaces (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1995).

As emphasized by McLoughlin and Lee (2008), there are continual transformational shifts occurring in instructing and learning practices that are providing opportunities for greater variety and accessibility of interactions and exchanges.  Personalization, participation, and productivity integrated into technological advancements allow for greater socialization, networking and collaborating within a learning culture. These changes impact on the need for effective pedagogy that will be used in learning communities that are shifting towards a knowledge age where creativity and originality are highly valued. The abundance and movement of knowledge today is driving pedagogical and technological change in education and work environments.

References

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, R. (1995). An examination of teaching and learning processes in distance education and implications for designing instruction. In M. F. Beaudoin (Ed.), Distance Education Symposium 3: Instruction (Vol. 12, pp. 51-63). State College, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.

Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 20-38. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=44df9326-1f0e-47ea-a711-1d8e068586e7%40sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=6

McCoombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record (107), 1582-1600.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P's of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27.

O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. MPRA. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4578/1/MPRA_paper_4578.pdf