DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.4 THE UNITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND ACTIVITY
food for the whole tree. It is the same with these three schools of thought because they are operating underground and they cannot be seen but it is known that they are there to integrate the effective use of the tree three rings.
They are operating in the same way as the roots in terms of planning, organising, preparing, practicing, presenting and revising the whole Web learning with the aim of improving the teaching and learning situation (as shown in Figure 2.2: systems approach).
important as a way of using scaffolding process which recommended by Cummings and Bonk (2002) for the most successful online courses.
The outcomes were also given to students before they started their first interface interaction by the seven facilitators (except Respondent 1a).
Respondent 1a’s first presentation only outlines the aims of the module, not the outcomes. Once the students have the outcomes, they start to construct their own perceptions that help them to decide early whether the module is important or is of no value to them (Anderson and Elloumi, 2004). But, if the outcomes are given later, students usually dig deeper to achieve other important outcomes that were not part of the facilitator’s list. In other words they become creative because they do not understand when and where to stop their knowledge construction. But whether the outcomes are specified in the beginning or not, Anderson and Elloumi (2004, p.149) encourage constructivist learning outcomes because “constructivist learning outcomes strive to apply real-world standards, and to assure that learning outcomes are applicable beyond a merely academic context.”
If facilitators begin with the outcomes in preparing the situation for their students to learn, they themselves, in most cases, end up teaching their students the outcomes instead of creating a situation which consists of what students have to learn. Mezirow (1990) encourages facilitators to create these kinds of situations (disorienting dilemmas) in order to force their students to transform. In the case of the seven facilitators (except Respondent 2b), the students’
transformation was not forced by the facilitators’ activities, but instead it was forced by the students’ levels of interaction (Anderson & Elloumi, 2004, p.21).
Levels of interaction presented automatic disorienting dilemma that forced students to start to ask different questions during their learning process.
Mezirow (1991) argues that WBTL is about Transformative Learning Theory and constructivism because students find themselves in a challenging situation and use their experiences to come up with solutions that help them to access or collect relevant resources for the module. They have to exhibit and reflect on their previous experience by exercising their roles as active agents (Mahoney,
2005), the role denied to them by their facilitators who used the outcomes. The aim should be to create a situation that has relevant groupings of resources for the students to use during their learning process (knowledge construction).
These facilitators thought that the only way they could guide their students was to specify their module outcomes when they saw them for the first time so that their students could achieve them and stop digging for more. Respondent 2b even indicated that because of the lack of time, he used to give his students handouts and notes.
I can’t teach without giving my students the notes because the notes help me to achieve the intended outcomes faster. (for more Respondent 2b’s account in Chapter 4).
Educators were not aware that by listing those outcomes they were limiting their students from working as active agents.
Respondent 1b presented everything on off-line PowerPoint presentations, including all assignments that were going to be used for assessment purposes.
Most of his students started to stay away from his class because they knew what outcomes should be achieved. Although some of these outcomes could not be measured, there were five that were easy for the students to achieve without hard work. This is because such outcomes included computer literacy outcomes, yet Educational Technology modules use these outcomes as their prerequisites. These assignments have little to do with the process of trying to achieve the outcomes as they are not linked to them. The main problem for him, in trying to see if his students achieved the outcomes, was that he used words like ‘know’ (at the end of the module students will be able to know …) and
‘understand’ (at the end of the module students will be able to understand …) as a part of his outcomes. Therefore, it is clear that the seven facilitators (except Respondent 1a) use the three schools of thought in their WBTL environment. But, Respondent 1a is managing well with the constructivist approach only (as it can be observed in her design – Appendix X: Respondent 1a’s design). This also came out from the following statement by her:
I am familiar with current theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism with, AT, TLT, ANT, connectivism and engagement theory) related to online learning with a strong leaning towards social constructivism in the virtual learning environment.
Seven of these facilitators (except Respondent 1b) can work effectively with advanced Web learning tools because they are operating at second (action level) and third level (operational level) of the Activity Theory (AT). They also operate comfortably with the three rings of TTTR because of their strong frames of reference. In most cases they cannot even notice whether the situation the face has changed, because they are comfortable enough to adjust themselves accordingly. Kaptelinin (1997) found that if level 2 and level 3 are frustrated, facilitators set new goals for the next action or often do not even notice but automatically adapt themselves to the new situation. Therefore, the two levels are important for the university facilitators in order to help educators from schools (primary and secondary schools) as indicated in the e-Education policy (Asmal, 2003).
However, Respondent 1b still has a challenge that pushes him away from the field (ET) because the Web in teaching and learning is here to stay and is also advancing rapidly everyday. He even came out and indicated as follows:
To tell you the truth I am no longer interested in ET because of the high tech that keeps on reshaping the field. I am old enough to take my pension now instead of attending courses that have to do with high tech in teaching and learning. Joining Higher Education will make me comfortable to use the knowledge and skills that I have now instead of attending training in the field of ET with rapidly changing and challenging technologies. I am not good in using these Web technologies in teaching and learning…
For him, to operate at the first level (activity level) or even the second level and be unable to master all the three rings of TTTR is not good enough because he is working for the tertiary institutions (universities). University facilitators are expected to act as the role models for the primary and secondary school
educators because, according to Makgoba (2005), they are expected to lead the transformation process of education and training in South Africa. In order to lead the transformation process they need to operate at the second level, at least, and move faster to the third level and master all the three rings of TTTR.
Thus, there is danger if the facilitators do not force themselves to acquire more knowledge and skills in order to use all the rings and operate at the third level of AT. Kaptelinin (1997) indicates that when a motive is frustrated, people are upset and their behaviour is most unpredictable. These facilitators may end up running their classes unsuccessfully because of the level of frustration created by their level of operation (first level). The levels of operation are determined by the facilitators’ frames of reference (personal qualities, knowledge, skills and experience) as discussed in the next section.