2.10 Electronic ideological-ware Resource (e-IwR)
2.10.3 Personal e-IwR
2.10.3.2 Personal e-IwR: CHAT
Figure 2.5: The Cultural Historical Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987, p.37)
The study conducted by Ngubane-Mokiwa and Khoza (2016) on the use of technology in teaching blind students is of the same idea as the study conducted by Amory on using games technology to mediate teaching and learning because these studies outlined that cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) was introduced as object-tool-subject network by (Vygotsky, 1933, 1978), and it is also called theory of activity. As a result, Vygotsky (1978) outlined that the main focus of CHAT is mediation in all human activities, and it is believed that all human activities (teaching and learning) have a certain structure in which mediation resources (Moodle) are supposed to be used. Further to this, Govender and Khoza (2017), and Amory- (2015), are of the idea that when using CHAT, all teaching and learning activities should be driven by educational technology resources such as Blackboard, Moodle, and others. Furthermore, regards to human activities, CHAT was extended from three basic principle made out of subject, tool, and object to seven principles comprised up of subject, tool, object, outcome, rules, community, and division of labour, as depicted in Figure 2.5 (Engeström, 1987; Ngubane-Mokiwa, 2013). CHAT as an activity system, is a vital frame used in the field of educational technology since it has an element of social mediation (Amory, 2014;
Engeström, 2014). In other words, it caters for a societal need during the teaching and learning process (Mpungose*, 2016),
76
In addition to the above, the use of CHAT as a personal e-IwR in the context of this study of using Moodle resource (tool) during teaching and learning activities implies that lecturers and students (subject, initiators, actors) should play a major role (teaching and learning role using Moodle) in order to unpack objects (module content), and this may easily give way to achieve outcomes (goals-learning outcomes). CHAT assists subjects (lecturers and student) to follow stipulated rules (university policy on the use of Moodle) in a collaborative social space for social teaching and learning (Engeström, 1987). This theory also ensures that the university community (academics, computer technicians, student, and human resource staff) are aware of division of labour (allocated duties) among themselves for smooth teaching and learning (Engeström, 1987; Falvo & Johnson, 2007).
Moreover, the study conducted by Amory (2014) and Govender and Khoza (2017) reveal that CHAT as a personal e-IwR involves various mediation in the activity system, which results in informal reflection (societal need). For instance, when the lecturer (subject) creates ways of mediating, questioning, or unpacking the prescribed module content (objects), it is therefore easy to achieve stipulated module learning goals (Outcomes). This suggests that one of the main aims of CHAT is to achieve learning outcomes in order to satisfy the needs of university community, especially learners; in other words, CHAT is informed by an informal reflection where aims and objectives do not matter, but only learning outcomes matter (Engeström, 2014; van Rooij & Lemp, 2010). Similarly, through CHAT, both students and lecturers are taken as cultural entities living in the university community, and therefore, they are expected to involve societal, communal experience during teaching and learning activities (Engeström, 2001; Ramrathan, 2017). In other words, Moodle platforms, like chat rooms and discussion forums, should be made available by HEIs for the social construction of skills to occur in order to transform and develop teaching and learning activities (Jackson, 2017; Selwyn, 2016).
The study conducted by Govender and Khoza (2017) interrogated CHAT, and it was revealed that CHAT has various social connections from the seven principles of CHAT. This study revealed
77
that the majority of these connections are driven by informal reflection in order to address the needs of the society in all structured activities. The subject makes connections between the rules and university community, the Moodle resource and module content including the module content and university community. The content makes connections between the Moodle resource and subject, the university community, and subject, as well as the university community and division of labour; and the community makes connections between the subject and module content, the rules and subject, as well as the module content and division of labour. This suggests that all social connections are discovered in order to interrogate the module content so that learning outcomes are to be achieved. This suggest that any activities done without achieving goals (learning outcomes) are fruitless and it needs to be restructured in order to identify good social connections that are informed by informal reflection for a smooth achievement of learning outcomes (Bloom, 1956; Hoadley & Jansen, 2013).
In addition to the above, Ngubane-Mokiwa (2013) outlined that there are five guiding principles (Amory, 2014; Engeström, 2001; Engeström et al., 1999; Govender & Khoza, 2017) of CHAT, namely: 1. CHAT system is collective – one should understand the background of the system (community) before any activity begins; 2. All subject’s voices should heard – both student and lecturers voices should be heard during teaching and learning; 3. Subjects should understand problem in order to provide relevant solutions – students and lecturers should understand what Moodle is before using it for teaching and learning; 4. Subjects should first acknowledge challenges in order to bring effective teaching and learning – lecturers should accept they are not well versed with Moodle as digital immigrants; and 5. Subjects should always focus and expect the unexpected changes – lecturers should not be aware of any changes in a system and they must not resist but adapt. These principles clearly show that CHAT is driven by informal reflection, which address the needs of the community in a system (Khoza, 2015c; Maxwell, 2013). In other words, teaching and learning in system requires social understanding and role identification in order to avoid chaos so that outcomes can be achieved (Khoza-, 2013c).
78 2.10.3.3 Personal e-IwR: Five stage model
Figure 2.6: Five-stage model of teaching and learning online (Salmon, 2004, p. 29).
The study conducted by Salmon (2004) outlines that the five-stage model, as depicted in Figure 2.6, makes provision on ideologies as to how online learning (personal e-IwR) should occur. The model has five stages where e-moderator (lecturer) and e-learners (students) intereact through e- tivities (online activities) done during the teaching and lerning process. The major pupose of this personal e-IwR is to motivate all online users or participants to participate effectively during the teaching and learning process. The study further outlines that there are five stages which provides a scaffolding process, and each stage has its own techincal skills and specific name given to it, namely: stage 1: Access and motivation; 2. Online socialisation; 3. Information exchange; 4.
Knowledge construction; 5. Development. Further to this, each stage consist of e-tivities that should be perfomed by both e-moderator and e-learner (Salmon et al., 2010). It is outlined that technical support plays a major role because it will enhance good social intervention from the e- moderator to e-leaners through the use of appropriate and authentic e-tivities (Salmon, 2013). In other words, both lecturer and students (univesity community) should undergo informal reflection for their own societal needs during the teaching and learning process (Salmon & Hawkridge, 2009;
Zeichner- & Liston, 1996). This suggests that all stages require social interaction between an e- moderator and e-learner in addressing their infomal needs in such a way that, the teaching and
79
learning process should be effective and active, and have good contributions in order to achieve an increased societal satisfaction (Mpungose*, 2016; Piaget, 1976).
In addition to the above, according to various studies, stage 1, is a first and a background step of all others steps in the model (Salmon, 2004, 2012, 2013; Schön, 1983; Scully, 2012). As a result, both e-moderator and e-learner should gain access to the system in stage 1, and they should be motivated to spend more time in order to get used to logging into the system. These studies often found that most e-learners have adequate technological skills of TIE and TOE respectively.
According to these studies, the main duty of the e-moderator is to provide assistance to e-learner by providing good e-tivities with clear instructions of how to have access or login details into the system, and support those e-learners with difficulties. Further to this, studies outline that, immediately after e-learners have completed the setting and accessing of the system, it is therefore the duty of the e-moderator to motivate them by providing e-tivities that motivate and provide satisfaction on the use of IwR. In other words, informal reflection should drive e-moderators to give e-tivities that will enable the e-learner to know how and why they are going to go about learning. This involves ways they have to do to take part in order to achieve societal need (Salmon et al., 2010; Schon, 1987). For instance, in the use of Moodle, students should be supported and motivated by lecturers in order to understand how to have access Moodle. Thereafter, Moodle should provide clear instructions as to how to go about navigating the platform. In this way, student and lecturers will stay motivated in the use of Moodle (Govender & Khoza, 2017; Jackson, 2017).
Furthermore, studies done by Salmon (2004), Salmon (2013), as well as Salmon and Hawkridge (2009) outline that stage 2 is about socialisation which is influenced by informal reflection, and the duty of e-moderators is to provide e-tivities for socialisation between cultural, social, and learning activities, whereas e-learners are expected to have a group or community where they will send and receive social massages. For instance, lecturers should create an introductory e-tivities through the use of discussion forum in Moodle platform, where learners will informally chat to each other about their social life experiences and background as well as sharing their culture amongst themselves; and lecturers should also provide module or course outline, let students read and share ideas about the module in order familiarise themselves about Moodle. Moving further,
80
these studies further outline that stage 3 is about information exchange or sharing what e-learners already know and what they can search. Thus, e-moderators are obliged to design and give e- tivities that requires information exchange, and must be able to give immediate feedback to students (Adnan, Kaleliodgu, & Gulbahar, 2017; Le Grange* & Reddy, 2017). For example, a lecturer is expected to design and give quizzes that will automatically provide feedback to students about a concept of a module being studied. This suggests that quick online feedback will provide satisfaction to those groups of students (societal need) through the use of informal reflection (Jesup et al., 2017; Reddy & le Grange, 2017).
The study by Salmon (2004) outlines that stage 4 allows e-learners to take control of their own knowledge construction in various styles. This study further reveal that, e-moderators should be able to make complex e-tivities available to e-learners so that they can socialise in order to construct their own knowledge, and e-moderators should ensure that e-learners do take part in those activities effectively by tracking their participation in the system. For instance, lecturers may use the Moodle platform to provide a scenario that needs students to think, and research constructively before sharing the solution on the discussion forum. Further to this, stage 5 is advocating for informal reflection for development of e-moderators and e-learners in order to become committed and creative (Salmon & Hawkridge, 2009). Moreover, informal reflection drives their social teaching and learning by looking back at their actions in other stages in order to improve their practices at this stage, and both e-moderators and e-learners produce and deal with more emotional aspects of writing their social experiences during teaching and learning (Salmon, 2013; Sator & Bullock, 2017). For instance, lecturers should make evaluation forms for students, lectures, and module so that learners may use informal reflection in evaluating their practices during the teaching and learning process.
81 2.10.3.4 Personal e-IwR: TPACK
Figure 2.7: The TPACK Framework and its Knowledge Components (http://tpack.org, 2012, reproduced by permission of the publisher
Moreover, Bernstein (1999) as well as Khoza (2016b) further alluded that teaching and learning theories (personal e-IwR) in the integration of technology with curriculum play a major role. As a result, Govender and Khoza (2017, p. 77) conducted a study on educational technology, and it was outlined from the study that, “There are three basic components of knowledge essential for teaching, namely, content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK) and technological knowledge (TK)”. This then suggests that lecturers/practitioners should possess a personal e-IwR that may address any reflections among the three, namely, personal reflection, formal reflection, and informal reflection. For this reason, Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed a learning theory called Technological, Pedagogical And Content Knowledge (TPACK) as depicted in Figure 2.7 above, which aims to capacitate practitioners, like lecturers, with these three basic knowledges (CK, TK, PK) so that they can pedagogically use any emerging educational technology for effective teaching and learning in all disciplines (education, health, engineering, and others). This suggests that lecturers should have a personal reflection of what capabilities educational
82
technology can offer and how it can be used during the teaching and learning context (Amory, 2014; Anderson et al., 2015). For instance, when lecturers offer a certain content of a certain module, they must be able to select the relevant pedagogical methods together with the technology, with which they will facilitate the presentation of the lesson. The proper selection will depend on the ability of a lecturer to possess the CK, TK, and PK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Piguillem Poch et al., 2012).
2.10.3.4.1 Content Knowledge (CK) – knowledge of subject matter
Moreover, CK is knowledge about the content of a subject or a module that is to be learned or taught, such as the content of undergraduate’s Physical Science modules that is to be covered per semester (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Note that “Knowledge of content is of critical importance for teachers.” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63). This suggests that teachers need to be informed by formal reflection, which addresses the subject, or a module need in order to master the subject or module content. As a result, nature of content knowledge varies greatly among content areas or disciplines, and it is of paramount importance that lecturers clearly or deeply understand the discipline/subject that they teach (Khoza, 2016a). For instance, lecturers teaching Physical Science module should be able to master mechanics or physics (area of science dealing with motion and forces producing motion) and chemistry (area of science dealing with substances). Thus, Van den Akker* et al. (2009) outline that CK assists lecturers to have knowledge of other curriculum concepts (resources, accessibility, time, platforms, activities, roles, goals, assessment) toward teaching of a particular content of a module. According to Shulman (1986), it is clear that if lecturers have inadequate CK, this can be quite prohibitive to students and they can develop incorrect conceptions about the module taught. In other words, teaching a module or subject without strong or enough CK may not save the purpose of addressing the subject need. For this reason, Mpungose* (2016, p. 260) strongly advocates that “teachers without content-related knowledge, experience uncertainty about topics”. This suggests that a formal reflection plays a major role in addressing the module need, because lecturers are expected to question themselves and read or research more about the module content offered (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Van Manen, 1991). As a result, the move or discussion of CK indicates that it is driven by formal reflection since it is concerned about the understanding of a module content.
83
2.10.3.4.2 Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) – knowledge of teaching methods
Moreover, both Bates* (2016), as well as Mishra and Koehler (2006), are of the view that PK is a critical knowledge about the approaches/practices/methods of teaching and learning such as behaviouralism, constructivism, cognitivism, and others. This is a broad form of knowledge that relates to student learning, classroom management, instructional preparation and enactment, as well as student assessment, that a lecturer should personally possess in order to deliver a lesson or a lecture (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Khoza, 2015). This suggests that lecturers with broad PK comprehend how students construct knowledge and receive skills in various ways. This implies that a PK requires teachers to have an understanding approach that addresses cognitive domain, affirmative domain, and psychomotor domain (Behari-Leak, 2017; Bloom, 1956), and be able know how to use them during teaching and learning processes (Mpungose*, 2016). PK requires lecturers personally master approaches or methods, and this may lead them to undergo personal reflection in order to address their personal needs of understanding approaches before teaching and learning begins (Boud et al., 2013; Wareing, 2017). This suggests that there is a need for lecturers to own the pedagogy in order to become confident and be able to use TK during the teaching and learning process.
2.10.3.4.3 Technological Knowledge (TK) – knowledge of technology tools
Shulman (1986) Acknowledges that teachers who have knowledge of their subject content and of general pedagogical approaches is not adequate in the process of teaching and learning. Further to this, teaches cannot be regarded as good teachers if an only if, there is no interplay between content and approach component through the use of technology. Thus, TK is defined as “knowledge about the different range of tools and technologies, from traditional technologies such as pencil, paper, chalk and chalkboard, to digital technologies such as the internet, computer simulations, interactive whiteboards, discussion forums, and soft-ware programmes” (Govender & Khoza, 2017, p. 77).
That is the reason why Persky (1990) is in support of Mishra and Koehler (2006)’s emphasis, that lecturers should use effective ways of integrating TIE (SwR and HwR) with curriculum in order to maintain smooth social, collaborative, and cooperative teaching and learning. This suggests that lecturers may undergo informal reflection in order to have a deeper, more essential understanding and mastery of TIE for teaching and learning (Amory, 2014; Wamba, 2017). For instance, lecturers
84
should understand how LMP technology such as Moodle, is constructively used in order to involve all learners to social construct their own ideas. Furthermore, it is clear that the use of Moodle activities, like chat and discussion forum, create a social space where student and lecturers (university community) may socially engage in a dialogue with a purpose of teaching and learning (Bates*, 2016; Jackson, 2017). Thus, lecturers should possess knowledge of using technology to teach modules and this will make students’ life easier. This then seeks lecturers to engage students in a social space where they can share their experiences being influenced by informal reflection.