This article was downloaded by: [San Jose State University Library]On: 16 November 2014, At: 17:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Information Technology for TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe19

At the intersection of technology and pedagogy:considering styles of learning and teachingIan W. Gibson aa Wichita State University , USAPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Ian W. Gibson (2001) At the intersection of technology and pedagogy: considering styles of learningand teaching, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10:1-2, 37-61, DOI: 10.1080/14759390100200102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390100200102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Nos 1&2, 2001

37

At the Intersection of Technology and Pedagogy: considering styles of learning and teaching

IAN W. GIBSON Wichita State University, USA

ABSTRACT In considering those forms of teaching and learning that most favor the use of information and communication technologies, this article explores assumptions related to technology use and education; describes technology use in learning contexts that favor teacher-centered and student-centered approaches; refers to the literature on learning styles; and presents some of the evidence supporting a move towards technology-based, student-centered learning environments. In analyzing this information, the article concludes with a statement supporting a ‘pedagogy of learning’ as the most favorable context/style for the use of appropriate educational technologies.

Introduction

I began looking for the intersection (of technology and pedagogy) quite a while ago. Jumped right into the same trusty vehicle I had always used to take me places I was familiar with or thought I’d been to before and headed out. And, as is typical of many of my gender, didn’t bother to ask for directions because I knew where I was going, and knew how to get there – well, vaguely at least. As could be expected, the trip took a little longer than originally planned. I did discover some new territory on the way, and I’m not sure I’ve arrived yet!

The plan was simple. Rediscover the research on learning styles and teaching styles. Interpret all of it in the context of the most appropriate educational use of information technologies (IT). Be a bit controversial by adding some not so sensitive points about the divide between teacher-centered classrooms and, say, student-centered classrooms. Throw in a cute metaphor of some sort (like driving somewhere simple). Move from point A to point B, and in the process raise the important issues that need to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

38

considered in exploring that intersection where technology and pedagogy meet. How hard could that be? But where to start?

Listing some assumptions that appear to be commonplace to this topic, to clarify the area of discussion, and to provide some common background material might provide a place to begin.

o Technology use is ultimately good. o All learners are excited and comfortable about the use of technology. o Technology use in classrooms disturbs the ecology and the dynamics of

teaching. o Technology use raises questions for teachers to answer about their own

beliefs. o Technology use changes a teacher’s belief about teaching. o Technology use leads to change.

Technology is ‘Good’ and All Learners Like ‘IT’

It has been claimed that using technology effectively in classrooms has enabled teachers to be more successful and assists students in learning what they need to know to be effective citizens (Bialo & Sivin, 1990; Cotton, 1991; Means & Olsen, 1993; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). While there may be some question about the definition of exactly what effective use of technology means, in my experience it is certainly true to say that incorporating information technologies into teaching effects those involved. Whether this effect is ‘good’ (as defined by an increase in understanding, ease of use, or other indicators of enhanced learning) or not, depends upon a host of variables that will be considered during this article. Whether ‘IT’ has all learners both comfortable and excited, again depends on specifics that go beyond speculation and reside in an analysis of particular learning situations – some of which we will consider.

However, this commonplace assumption has it that all learners are excited, informed, confident and equally skilled in their use of technology. Most teachers aware of their charges will already know that not all learners will find the same type of experience with technology rewarding. For example, differences in technological experience still exist between boys and girls. Similar differences in experience and access exist between children and adults (Cantor, 1992; Cranton, 1992; Kearsley, 1996), students from different socioeconomic classes, and students from different cultural groups (Knapp & Glenn, 1996). Further, from my own teaching experience it would appear that what applies to everyday learning environments also applies to a technology-based learning environment. That is: those students who preferred challenging work achieved more; who were motivated by curiosity and interest do better than those interested in pleasing the teacher; and who had internal criteria for success or failure achieved higher than those with external criteria. So, as an occasionally needed call back to reality, the issues D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

39

of individuality and diversity will pervade this article from a quiet place, somewhere in the background.

Planning for Technology and Change

To continue this quick preview of assumptions, Knapp & Glen (1996) have raised a series of questions that impact teachers during the planning for technology:

o How will students react to technology? o How will technology affect our concept of knowledge? o How will technology change the location for teaching and learning? o What type of new skills will students need to learn? o How will the technology change my classroom and my relationship with

my students? o How will technology impact upon the accountability for achievement in

my classroom? o How does this technology work? o How much time is needed to get ready to use the technology in the

classroom? o How will the technology change my teaching style? o What kind of classroom management problems may occur if I use

technology?

Of these, the questions related to student reactions to technology and teaching style are directly significant to this discussion, yet all of them impact upon the process of planning for effective technology use in educational contexts. It can be assumed that the mere recognition of these questions would constitute some form of change, but the assumption of lasting change to classroom technology use, to teaching and to learning processes is another issue that will be dealt with more fully as this discourse continues.

So, teachers need to consider the impact of technology use on their own confirmed beliefs about how best to teach. Can it be assumed that introducing technology to established teaching environments is likely to impact, to the point of change, upon even the most confirmed and well- entrenched beliefs? For the majority of teachers who use a variation of the traditional, didactic pedagogy (Goodlad, 1984; Knapp & Glenn, 1996), using the full potential of technology in their classroom will bring many of these beliefs into question. For example, a process of ‘instructional evolution in technology’ has been described by Dwyer et al (1990a). In their conception, teachers move:

o from adopting technology in support of common instructional practices; o to adapting technology for experimenting with different instructional

practices; o to appropriating technology to create new strategies;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

40

o to creating learning situations where technology is used by students to invent learning experiences.

In basing their comments on the evidence contained within the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) research, Dwyer et al (1990a) claim that it is the combination of familiarity, confidence, flexibility and success that create conditions where changes can occur in teachers’ conceptions of how they can use technology to facilitate student learning outcomes. Further, they have found, in learning environments supported by technology, that teachers:

o expect more from students; o can present more complex material; o believe students understand more difficult concepts; o can more effectively meet the needs of individual students; o can be more student centered in their teaching; o are more open to multiple perspectives on problems; o are more willing to experiment; o feel more professional because they help people learn rather than

dispense information.

Social Change and Educational Change

Yet this type of change is not just occurring in isolation in the classrooms of flexible and innovative teachers. While it could once have been said that teachers thought they were independent of the influence of others after the classroom door had been closed, it cannot now be assumed that classrooms can function effectively in a similar vacuum. Few would argue that the world is well into the shift of being knowledge based and globally oriented. The way people access, work with, and communicate information is fundamentally different than a decade ago. Yet, for the most part, the way we structure learning today is much as it was 5 or more decades ago!

In addition, this discourse might also quietly bring into consideration the issue of the level of systemic planning necessary for maintaining the potential, significant change in approaches to teaching likely to result from widespread technology use in education. Why is it that achieving any new paradigm of teaching and learning is so difficult? Everyone has heard about the need for the teacher to become the ‘guide on the side’ and not the ‘sage on the stage’. The terms have almost become clichés: teacher as the facilitator of learning, teacher as coach, teacher as researcher, teacher as mentor; yet the widespread adoption of any new approaches to teaching and learning seem to pale relative to the dramatic changes that have occurred all around us. What seems to be true in this new educational context is that change is guaranteed, whether it is embraced by educators or not. Further, and as if in recognition of the widening divide between society and schooling, the warning comes for those who wish no change to their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

41

educational practices – the future guarantees that those things that made for successful educational practice in the past will not lead to success in the future.

My purpose here though is not to arbitrarily explode assumptions or to explore in detail each technology learning possibility, or to try to establish a definitive listing of the variety of effective learning situations that are possible when considering combinations of technology usage. (For those interested in this approach, consider the listing of over 500 uses of technology in education at http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/tl/) It is more to explore the core considerations that arise at the intersection of technology and pedagogy.

To begin that process, I intend to look at two simplified and stereotyped ends of a continuum of learning environments. From there I will pass through learning styles and then move on to an analysis of the impact technology can have on pedagogy. Driving on, the intersection of technology and pedagogy will appear for a minute and then disappear in the rear view mirror as a ‘pedagogy of learning’ looms directly ahead as the final destination.

A Simplified View: teacher-centered and student-centered learning environments – knowledge instruction or knowledge construction

Most teachers use a variation of a teacher-centered model of instruction, where the emphasis is upon the presentation of a body of knowledge or a set of skills that students are to learn (Goodlad, 1984; Knapp & Glenn, 1996). For teachers, this style of teaching is predictable, comfortable and controllable. The focus of power in these classrooms remains with the teacher, provides them with almost total control of the process and the unrestrained ability to plan, to test, and to cover the set material.

Like a kind of giant Pez (candy) dispenser of knowledge, Dwyer (1996) suggests that in settings such as these, learning is viewed as the transfer of thoughts from one who is knowledgeable to one who is not, and where the work of the teacher is perceived as direct instruction. Extending these images further, in traditional, instruction-based classrooms, activity is the teacher’s domain. Students are generally passive listeners following carefully sequenced instructions. In this environment, and often regardless of topic, subject, or discipline, common teaching methods include lecture, whole class or small group instruction, drill-and-practice exercises from workbooks or sheets with a dependence upon facts, rote learning and structured, clearly defined activities. While students may be organized into groups, the structure and practice of this industrial age, traditional educational setting imposes a predominantly private and individual expectation on the work accomplished in these settings. D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ian W. Gibson

42

Technology in this situation can be a ‘patient, non-threatening tutor for basic skill acquisition ... offering students infinite opportunity to repeat problems until process or content is mastered’ (Dwyer, 1996, p. 18). Technology is also able to make lectures more effective by providing visual examples of difficult concepts or unfamiliar terrain. It can also assist teachers in the management and administration of a variety of aspects of this style of teaching.

Some teachers de-emphasize the teaching process in favor of the learning process. In these classrooms, teachers use a discovery approach to learning where the focus is on the process, and the responsibility for learning is shared with the student. Collaborative, often team-based experiences in these classrooms help students to become deeply involved in manipulating information and thinking about it through processes of inquiry, critical thinking, problem solving, discussion and communication. It is through these processes that students synthesize this new and personalized information into their own knowledge bases. In these classrooms, where the emphasis is upon individualized learning in a situated context dealing with authentic problems, it becomes much more difficult for teachers to maintain control of what actually occurs. Here, the teacher does not ‘teach’ or deliver knowledge. The teacher’s role is to assist students to become independent learners and to critically analyze what is ‘learnt’. Further, in Dwyer’s (1996) view, a learning environment based upon student-centered, constructivist thinking is characterized by learning as a personal, reflective, and transformative process where teacher work is construed as facilitating students in their attempts to integrate ideas, experiences and points of view into something new.

In classrooms focusing upon the construction of knowledge, activity and freedom of physical and intellectual movement are shared by all inhabitants of the learning space. Action becomes a requirement for all learners regardless of their status. Here, learners work collaboratively, conversing, sharing, and solving problems through inquiry, trial and error, and through public comparisons of alternative solutions. Teams form and a variety of approaches is the norm. Investigations often lead to solutions, but always lead to discoveries. Student work is varied, oriented to sharing information and critically reviewing ideas, models, and other peer products. Work completed here is open to public scrutiny, and this fact alone is sufficient to affect the quality of work done, the commitment to that work, and whether the work is conceived of as real or not by learners (Dwyer, 1996; Dwyer et al, 1990c).

In this setting, technology takes on the vastly different role of a tool rather than a tutor. This general-purpose tool provides learners with access to information, expert communications, opportunities for collaboration, and a medium for creative thought, expression, and knowledge construction.

Dwyer (1996) simplifies the differences between teacher-centered (knowledge instruction) and student-centered (knowledge construction)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

43

learning environments by charting the attributes of each environment as shown in Table I.

Knowledge Instruction Knowledge Construction

Classroom Activity Teacher-centered (didactic) Learner-centered (interactive) Teacher role Fact teller

(always expert) Collaborator

(sometimes learner) Student role Listener

(always learner) Collaborator

(sometimes expert) Instructional emphasis Facts

(memorization) Relationships

(inquiry and invention) Concept of knowledge Accumulation of facts Transformation of facts

Demonstration of success Quantity Quality of understanding Assessment Norm-referenced

(multiple-choice items) Criterion-referenced

(portfolios/performances) Technology use Drill-and-practice Communication

(Collaboration, information access, expression)

Table I. Attributes of instruction and construction learning environments (adapted from

Dwyer, 1996).

In summarizing Dwyer’s conception of the role of technology in each of these settings, it appears to be useful to consider the computer as a tutor in the knowledge instruction setting, and as a tool in the knowledge construction setting. Maddox (1986) agrees that there are essentially two types of computer applications in classrooms. He has typified these styles as Type I and Type II applications. In Type I applications, the computer is used to do things that have always been done as part of the curriculum. These applications make things easier and quicker, and although some of these things are important, they will not lead to educational change or reform. Type II applications incorporate the development of new pedagogical styles and new learning orientations. Proponents of the educational change inferred in Maddox’s work contend that schools must change from a teacher-centered approach, with its emphasis upon the recall of knowledge, to a student-centered approach, enabling students to think abstractly, problem solve, collaborate with others and seek creative solutions (Knapp & Glenn, 1996).

So, in order to continue the journey, a quick summary of the role of technology, in this very simplistic view of two apparently mutually exclusive ends of the continuum of learning contexts, is in order. At one end, technology plays the role of a patient tutor, consistently working at the learner’s pace to assist in acquiring sets of information, skills, or facts. Dril-l and-practice, and individual achievement predominate in this setting. Teachers use technology to demonstrate concepts, enhance their instruction, and lend excitement to their presentations. There is often access to programmed instruction software capable of feeding back very accurate information to teachers about the individual progress of all students in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

44

class. Reinforcement of the correct answers to many answerable questions is often the role of the computer technology in this setting. When one student completes a clearly defined computer lesson, another sits at the computer for their next session. A technology ‘scope and sequence’ curriculum document often guides class progress through previously identified technology literacy requirements. Many of these classrooms have their own set of software, or have access to a ‘school set’ that provides a variety of choices of computerized subjects: English, mathematics, reading, social studies, spelling, number facts. The larger part of learning activity occurs within the four walls of the classroom. At the end of most days, the teacher has presented a planned set of lessons and each of the students has, in some form, experienced these lessons with varying degrees of understanding.

In the other setting, technology is helping students to become independent learners capable of developing very sophisticated products. Collaborative work predominates along with inquiry, analysis and critical thinking. A variety of technology-based communication modes is heavily used. Information searches, computer modeling, teamwork, brainstorming, drafts, editing and revisions are commonplace. Teachers use computers to make learning experiences more effective and to offer students access to a variety of learning tools, expert opinion, social and cultural groups, and alternative viewpoints. Learning appears to be untidy and often chaotic. There appears to be very few clearly definable ‘endings’, or ‘beginnings’, or packaged lessons. Only occasional use is made of the classroom set of software in exchange for heavy reliance upon application programs: integrated office productivity and presentation software, Internet browsers, communications software, and access to large information databases from around the globe. While the classroom is treated as the headquarters for most activities, there are no physical boundaries restricting learning to any specific location. At the end of the day it is likely that more questions have been raised than answered. Some individuals or teams will have completed some tasks or begun others that are more pressing. Each student will have participated in a variety of learning experiences and all will have felt individual responsibility for learning and ownership for activities.

A Reaction to Simplified Debates

Upon reflection though, part of what makes this style of debate a little naive is the disregard for a simple and pragmatic observation. For the sake of this discussion, consider that almost all education can be viewed as comprising a mixture of two purposes: instrumental and transformative. Instrumental education is that in which the learner acquires new knowledge or skills for the purpose of being able to do something in particular. Transformative education is that in which the learner participates in a process for the purpose of changing in some important ways as an individual human being D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

45

or member of a community. Both purely instrumental and purely transformative education are quite rare.

So, when evaluating these short descriptions, there will be a tendency to lean more towards one than the other for a variety of reasons. Understand though, that at this point, there is a variable or two missing from these pictures if informed decisions about the appropriateness of particular types of technology use or approaches to learning are to be made. Lest we intend to make the mistake of assuming that one pure model of learning is capable of fitting all comers, the most critical variables missing from these scenarios are: 1. a detailed knowledge of individual learners and learner needs and 2. the subsequent understanding of specific learning objectives.

It was about here that the strategy of driving directly from point A to point B became a little difficult and certainly counterproductive. There were too many places where the road simply didn’t go straight ahead – too many side streets – too many curves – too many other ways of getting there – and not nearly enough street lights. There was something to be gained from the analysis of specific types of teaching and learning contexts, but you could only progress so far before you had to consider the way individuals in the situation acted or learnt.

Learning Styles

How do you learn? Well, the most commonly available information on ‘the different ways in which children and adults think and learn’ (Litzinger & Osif, 1993, p. 73) indicates, on first glance, that there appear to be four basic channels through which people prefer to receive information: Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, and Social.

How do you come to understand things? Do you consider things globally or do you analyze the details? This line of thinking can be extended by considering things in a little more detail – how information is taken in (perception) and how information is processed (ordering). Each of these two components can be further split into two qualities.

o Perception: (a) Concrete (sometimes called a left-brained approach) or (b) Abstract (sometimes called a right-brained approach).

o Ordering: (a) Sequential or (b) Random.

So, from these simple beginnings, further combinations of learning orientations can be derived. There are definitions of Concrete Sequential, Abstract Sequential, Abstract Random, or Concrete Random to consider.

Other descriptions of learning styles are based on the Myers-Briggs Inventory Test. The four categories generated by this process are: Thinker, Feeler, Intuitor and Sensor.

If the search for an understanding of learning styles continues, some can be found who, despite their protests, use Gardner’s (1983) seven

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

46

intelligences as additional means of defining individual orientations towards the acquisition of new knowledge. So, to the growing list of learning orientations can be added Musical, Artistic, Logical/Mathematical, Linguistic/Verbal, Bodily/Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal.

At this point, I began to have difficulty thinking about how to continue in this line of analysis. Would it really be useful to try to match each specific learning style to a specific technology use? I was certainly not prepared for that task considering the many variables involved from both the learning style end of the argument and the technology end. But I drove on and ended up at the Oklahoma Institute for Learning Styles web site (http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~oil/pages/ls.htm), looking at a series of suggestions for parents and other adult supervisors of learners (Read, 1999) adapted from work completed by Rita Dunn. Here I was introduced to the following list of considerations of learner preferences and learning orientations, presumably designed to assist teachers and parents in designing appropriate learning environments for students.

Sound Preference: No Sound, Needs Sound Light Preference: Low Light, Bright Light Temperature: Cool, Warm Design Preference: Formal, Informal Sociological: Alone, Authority, Peer Structure Preference: Needs, Needs Little Responsible: Is Not, Is Persistence: Is, Is Not Motivation: Teacher, Parent, Self, Not Motivated Perceptual: Visual, Auditory, Tactile, Kinesthetic Intake Preference: Does Not Require, Does Require Mobility Preference: Does Not Require, Requires Time: Morning, Afternoon, Evening

A University of Central Florida site simplified things by suggesting that teacher-centered instruction emphasized abstract perceiving and reflective processing, while learner-centered instruction allowed for all perceiving and all processing styles. An expansion of the concepts of curriculum, instruction, and assessment followed to clarify the emphasis upon a learner-centered orientation:

1. Curriculum. Emphasis on skills of intuition, feeling, sensing, imagination, and synthesis, as well as the traditional skills of analysis, reason, and sequential problem solving. 2. Instruction. Instruction designed to connect with all learning styles; use of alternating combinations of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. Wide variety of experiential formats, including sound, music, visuals, movement and experience, as well as talking. D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

47

3. Assessment. Multiple kinds of assessment that emphasize the development of ‘whole brain’ capacity that uses all four learning styles. (http://reach.ucf.edu/~fctl/research/styles.html)

I decided to stop and ask for directions after I read the following comment from Shanker (1990):

Some students need more time to complete a task than others, and most learn better through one method than another. Some learn best by reading chapters in a book, others by watching and listening to a videotape, and still others by direct experience. Some children comprehend new materials most readily when they analyze it in a teacher-led seminar, others when they teach it to younger children or when they grapple with it alone. Some students can master a concept the first time around because they have prior knowledge that has established a context for the unfamiliar material. Others need two tries or three or more and opportunities to see that beliefs they have acquired – say, about the flatness of the earth – are wrong. Some children shine in large groups; others are too insecure to participate. Some students can pace their efforts over a semester or a year, while others need the sharper incentives provided by shorter time periods. (p. 352)

The clarity of Shanker’s vision appeared to me to suggest that I look elsewhere for a pragmatic approach to the consideration of technology and pedagogy. It did not seem that I was going to benefit beyond what I had already considered in general terms, by pursuing the learning style approach in such minute detail. Detailing learning styles with great precision, while important in the sense of understanding how to cater to individual learners and their needs, was not getting me closer to my destination – perhaps an analysis of how the use of technology had changed teaching and learning in a variety of contexts would bring me closer to my destination.

How Technology can Impact on Pedagogy

In an analysis of the contributions of new technologies to the teaching and learning process in elementary schools, Grégoire et al (1996) provided the following findings with respect to student learning:

o New technologies can stimulate the development of intellectual skills. o New technologies can contribute to ways of learning knowledge, skills

and attitudes, although this is dependent on previously acquired knowledge and the type of learning activity.

o New technologies spur ‘spontaneous interest’ more than traditional approaches.

o Students using new technologies concentrate more than students in traditional settings. D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ian W. Gibson

48

o New technologies help spur a research spirit within students. o New technologies promote collaborative learning.

In making the transition between information technology’s contributions to learning and its contributions to teaching in the settings under study, Grégoire et al make two observations of significance for educational leaders:

o The benefit to students of using new technologies is greatly dependent, at least for the moment, on the technological skill of the teacher and the teacher’s attitude to the presence of technology in teaching.

o This skill and this attitude in turn are largely dependent on the training teaching staff have received in this area. (p. 18)

Their advice to those responsible for teacher pre-service and in-service training is to ensure that teachers have supportive knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to increase the benefits accruing to students from appropriate use of technology in the learning process.

With respect to teachers, Grégoire et al (1996) reported the following:

o New technologies permit teachers to avail themselves of new information sources.

o New technologies facilitate collaboration among teachers and others. o New technologies seem to lead teachers to develop lessons with more

authentic tasks and collaboration among students. o New technologies, used appropriately, result in a shift in teacher role to

guide or mentor who interacts with students more than in a traditional environment.

o Teachers employing new technologies shift their emphasis on learning to higher-order cognitive skills.

o New technologies foster more demanding assessment methods and student self-assessment.

o New technologies facilitate the use of more, and more frequent, formative assessment.

Despite the apparent causal inference behind these findings, and in a tone that reflects McClintock & Taipale’s (1994) warning that technology is not a panacea, Grégoire et al claim that it is becoming increasingly clear that technology in and of itself does not directly change teaching or learning. Rather, the critical element is how technology is incorporated into instruction (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, p. 57). While technology on its own may not improve student achievement, research is helping us understand how technology creates circumstances and opportunities under which there is a positive effect on student achievement (Honey et al, 1999).

Some of that research was conducted by Dwyer (1996) and Dwyer et al (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) in their sensitive descriptions of the impact of the ACOT context on teaching and learning. In the report of their longitudinal study they suggested the use of computers neither made teachers’ jobs easier nor made their missions clearer (Dwyer, 1996, p. 22). In recognizing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

49

the frustrations that often accompany change in familiar contexts, they found confusion and uncertainty lessened as teachers witnessed positive changes in their students. Student behavior was not the only area of change worthy of comment. It was only after teachers appropriated technology as a personal tool and collaborated with students in the learning process, that they were open to the possibility of redefining how they went about providing learning opportunities for students. ‘Technology was acknowledged as the catalyst for new perspectives and practices’ (Dwyer, 1996, p. 24). In the words of ACOT teachers:

As you work into using the computer in the classroom, you start questioning everything you have done in the past, and wonder how you can adapt it to the computer. Then, you start questioning the whole concept of what you originally did. (p. 24)

ACOT has revitalized the teaching process tremendously. It has also been the catalyst for a transition from blackboards and textbooks to a method of instruction where students can explore, discover, and construct their own knowledge. (p. 25)

Over a period of years in the ACOT environment, teachers showed evidence of a willingness to incorporate more open-ended assignments, ask leading questions that were contemporary, meaningful, and ultimately unanswerable, and dispensed with their past reliance upon right and wrong. In exchange for these old teaching habits, preferences for an emphasis upon notions of quality, depth of argument, and the ability to locate, analyze, and synthesize data into information and solutions to problems in a situated learning environment appeared. In this environment, technology became a tool for locating and accessing information, organizing and displaying data, creating persuasive arguments, and dynamically demonstrating ideas and conclusions to critical audiences of peers (Dwyer, 1996, p. 25). Further descriptions of how teachers learn to work differently and more effectively with children in environments where technology has a predominant influence were provided. The data indicated that technology was an engaging medium for student thought and collaboration, and that ‘technology plays a catalytic role in opening the minds of teachers to new ideas about children, about learning and about their own role in the education process’ (Dwyer, 1996, p. 29).

Such a shift in teaching approach, tied directly to the presence of technology, is worthy of consideration. But the question remains: is it the presence of technology that causes a dramatic restructuring of learning environments, or is it the readiness level of thoughtful, reflective, and flexible teachers who seize the opportunity to incorporate compatible information technologies into a variety of already good and evolving teaching methodologies?

Others have described similar significant changes to the teaching environment brought on by the presence of computer technology. Of the D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ian W. Gibson

50

608 computer-using teachers Sheingold & Hadley (1990) surveyed, nearly 90% of them felt their teaching had changed for the better in the following ways as a result of introducing computers into their classroom. Close to 75% expected more creative and edited work from their students; 70% spent more time with individual students; 65% were more comfortable with students working independently; 63% were better able to present more complex instruction; and 61% were better able to meet individual student needs. Other findings indicated that 52% spent less time lecturing to the entire class; 43% were more comfortable with small group activities; and 40% spent less time practicing or reviewing material with the whole class. Sheingold & Hadley suggest these data indicate that the presence of information technology does at least modify certain practices in classrooms.

Maurer & Davidson (1998) provide a list of other practices that can be modified by technology use. By indicating that the activity of schooling incorporates much that has little to do with learning: bus schedules, hot lunch programs, systems of discipline, testing, etc., they believe that incorporating information technologies into schooling practices will reclaim sufficient time to allow a refocus of attention on issues of learning. In their view, they see schools as places that ‘single-mindedly focus on helping and guiding children’s learning’ (p. 309). They have provided a list of specific changes they believe are related to an increased use of technology:

o greater individualization of learning; o more fluid arrangements of children for group learning experiences; o integration of isolated disciplines; o movement away from predefined, credit bearing, structured learning

units (Carnegie units) towards authentic learning; o movement away from discipline-driven environments and towards social

modeling; o a shift toward more powerful learning strategies. (p. 309)

Further, Maurer & Davidson discuss other options available to schools undergoing technological reform: individualized education plans for each child, increased number of individuals contributing to a child’s education, reduced emphasis upon age grouping, frequent use of smaller groups, and the understanding that children will learn where it is most effective to learn. In such restructured situations, it is claimed that technology is an essential ingredient (Knapp & Glenn, 1996) that adds cultural value to student products by having them replicate adult products with real world standards of quality (Means & Olsen, 1993). As a by-product of this process it is claimed that technology use:

o often stimulates teachers to present more complex tasks and material; o tends to support teachers in becoming coaches rather than dispensers of

knowledge; o provides a safe context for teachers to become learners again and to

share their ideas about curriculum and method;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

51

o can motivate students to attempt harder tasks and to take more care in crafting their work;

o adds significance and cultural value to school tasks. (Means & Olsen, 1993, p. 14)

It is not only as a result of incorporating technologies into isolated classroom activities that pressure is generated towards change in approaches to teaching in order to increase the benefits accruing to learners from appropriate technology use. Other players in the educational game are creating situations conducive to educational reform.

Pressure to Reform from Beyond the Classroom

Some reference has already been made to the mounting pressure for reform to the predominant style of teacher-centered instruction in evidence around the globe. In a paper prepared to prompt discussion on the issue of education in 2010 in Australia, the Director General of Education Queensland, Terry Moran (1999), made the following declarations:

o ‘Reading and writing and ‘rithmetic’, whether ‘taught to the theme of a hickory stick’ or not, are no longer adequate in the post-industrial world. Equally important are critical and creative thinking, problem solving and the capability for lifelong learning. Mastery of information technology and managing information underpin all learning and reinforce the need for high standards of literacy and numeracy.

o Schools need to be flexible in curriculum, pedagogy, and the organisation of the school day to respond to the different needs of the students.

o Students will need to be independent and confident users of information technology, capable of collaborative and innovative practice. We need to use the enormous possibilities of information technology to provide better access to learning for students and to transform the way learning occurs.

o Teachers are no longer the repositories of all knowledge – the gatekeeper – standing in front of a teacher-centered classroom. They are facilitators of learning, project managers, and research assistants. They work in partnerships.

o We must remain firmly committed to the principle of ‘a fair go’ for all. (p. 2)

In a parallel speech given to the National Press Club in Washington, DC, US Secretary of Education Richard Riley (1999) uttered similar thoughts during his paper on the American high school in the twenty-first century. He suggested the following:

o Building a new foundation for America’s high schools has to begin and end with good teaching. Pedagogy re-mediates, frames, and re-articulates what will count as knowledge in classrooms. D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ian W. Gibson

52

o Good teaching today is about having curriculum conversations, about authentic assessment, about expanding and sharing our professional pedagogical repertoires for improved student outcomes.

o New teachers simply have to be masters in knowing how to teach using technology, and we’re not there yet.

o We can also do more to create new pathways to learning and to adulthood. In a world exploding with knowledge, with teenagers hooked on the Internet as never before, the traditional seven-periods-a-day way of learning may not be the best or the only way to educate our young people.

As if to lend credence to the thoughts of those far removed from the chalkface, the US National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has produced a series of requirements for the ‘New Professional Teacher’:

o New Understandings – Teachers need to understand the deep impact technology is having on society as a whole: how technology has changed the nature of work, of communications, and our understanding of the development of knowledge.

o New Approaches – Today, teachers must recognize that information is available from sources that go well beyond textbooks and teachers – mass media, communications etc., and help students understand and make use of the many ways in which they can gain access to information. Teachers must employ a wide range of technological tools and software as part of their own instructional repertoire.

o New Roles – Teachers should help students pursue their own inquiries, making use of technologies to find, organize, and interpret information, and to become reflective and critical about information quality and sources.

o New Forms of Professional Development – Teachers must participate in formal courses, some of which may be delivered in non-traditional ways, e.g. via telecommunications; they must also become part of ongoing, informal learning communities with other professionals who share their interests and concerns.

o New Attitudes – Teachers need an ‘attitude’ that is fearless in the use of technology, encourages them to take risks, and inspires them to become lifelong learners. (NCATE, 1997)

It would appear from this evidence that the reality of the most effective approach to learning in a technological context has been widely recognized in the larger context. Together, these findings seem to suggest that the most conducive learning environment for the effective use of information technologies is one with a student-centered, rather than a teacher-centered, orientation. But is there still more to consider? Are there other decisions to be made to ensure an optimum environment for learners in a technology-based context?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

53

Is All Technology Use, Good Technology Use?

At James Madison High School in New York City, 10th-grade students (age 15 years), mostly African American and Latino, file into a networked computer lab and find seats at large new monitors and keyboards. Outside, in the hallways, in the stairwells, and in the foyers, the school resembles a minimum-security-prison facility, with metal detectors at the doors, a police substation located off the foyer, and security guards who move through the halls breaking up small groups of students who are avoiding classes by lounging on stairs and in rest rooms. James Madison is a large school in a middle-income neighborhood, but nearly all the students are poor and working class. Drugs and violence are a recurrent problem. The computer lab, however, is a relative haven: it is quiet here, and as students enter their names into the computer, they find that the software program greets them warmly by name, remembers exactly where they were when they left off the day before with their work, and gently guides them through well-designed exercises in biology, algebra, and American history, praising successful answers and offering patient prompting and another chance – without a hint of judgment – when they miss an answer. The teacher, who monitors the students’ individual workstations from a central machine of his own, moves around the room, helping students with technical problems, finding files, and printing. The students work well and mostly silently until the bell rings fifty minutes after they entered the room. Then they file out to return to their regular classrooms where, despite some dedicated teachers, the crowded, noisy, and sometimes intimidating teaching conditions will ensure that they remain relatively anonymous, and will have little contact with challenging material. In the chaotic context of James Madison, technology is the vehicle of a more individualized, effective – and possibly humane – instruction than students might otherwise get.

At the Richmond Academy, a private school across town from James Madison, 9th-graders (age 14 years) file into their social studies classroom and, before class begins, log on to one of six workstations at tables against the walls. They argue noisily about what they are finding as they unearth an archaeological site in ancient Greece. The students have been working on the computer-based archaeology simulation for about 3 weeks, and teams of students are each responsible for excavating one of four separate quadrants of the site. It is a welcome break for the 9th-graders, who in their other classes spend much of their time taking lecture notes and learning to parse sophisticated texts as part of their college-prep curriculum. Here they are ‘digging up’ pottery shards, fragments of weapons, pieces of masonry, and bits of ancient texts, and trying to identify and interpret each artifact in order to fit it into their emerging picture of the site as a whole. In their research, the students visit local museums, consult reference works on Greek history, art, and architecture, and ask other teachers in the school to help translate texts. Cleverly, the students’ teachers have filled the site with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

54

ambiguous evidence, so that some teams find a preponderance of data suggesting the site was a temple, while others find artifacts mostly suggesting it was a battlefield. In weekly meetings the teams present their latest findings to the rest of the class, and a hot debate ensues as the amateur archaeologists struggle to reconcile the fragmentary and ambiguous data. On this day the classroom is active and noisy, yet controlled, as students take turns at the computer, graph their findings on large wall charts, call across the room to ask if anyone has a spearhead to compare with one just found, and argue about whose final interpretation of the site will best explain the bulk of the evidence. (Bruner & Talley, 1999, pp. 23-25)

In both of these situations, the computers are state of the art, being used for valid educational ends, and contributing positively to the educational needs of the students. Despite the obvious contrasts in these settings, the technologies are proving flexible and capable in each. At Madison, the computer-based curriculum individualizes, streamlines and humanizes learning in a challenging, chaotic and depersonalized setting. At Richmond, students develop skills of reasoning as they go beyond processing texts. At both schools, the computing experience is removed from ‘regular’ learning experiences and as a result, the educators proclaim their approach to computing as models of ‘information age schooling’ and ‘schooling for the twenty-first century’. Both sets of students are immersed in a computer learning environment every day. They are becoming familiar with keyboarding, navigation skills, simulations, modeling, multimedia presentations and more.

But there is more to be seen in these scenarios. There is more impact than just the obvious. Students are being shown distinct visions for technology use, different visions of teaching and learning, and vastly different sets of expectations for life outcomes.

The first vision, represented by the James Madison computer lab, epitomizes an instructional delivery model. In it:

o learning is understood narrowly, as the mastery of discrete facts and bodies of information;

o technology functions as a delivery mechanism – a clean and efficient means of achieving content mastery;

o software contains the material to be learned and guides the learning process;

o students interact primarily with software and not with other students or adults;

o teachers are relegated to a relatively small role as monitors of learning, and as selectors of software;

o subject matter and performance criteria are predetermined and remain unquestioned;

o use of the technology can be incorporated within the existing structure and with little or no impact on the larger organization of teaching and learning in the school. (Brunner & Talley, 1999, p. 26)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

55

By contrast, the second vision of teaching and learning, reflected in the Richmond students’ simulated archaeological dig, is representative of an inquiry model of learning. In it:

o learning is understood broadly, as the ability to use one’s mind well in framing and solving open-ended problems in original ways, and in coordinating complex activities with others;

o technology serves as a catalyst and support for an extended classroom inquiry that is open-ended and ‘messy’, involving guessing, debate, and multiple materials;

o technology serves limited roles and is integrated with other tools and media – students learn using many different resources, including books, libraries, museums, videos, and adult experts in the school and beyond;

o students work collaboratively (and competitively) in teams helping each other to learn and sharing data in ways that model how real scientists collaborate;

o teachers play crucial roles in selecting goals and materials and as guides and intellectual coaches to students;

o broad subject matter decisions are made by teachers and more local ones by students, and teachers give students a role in determining performance criteria;

o the use of technology challenges the dominant mode of text-driven instruction in the school, making it more inquiry-based, collaborative, and varied in the use of resources. (Brunner & Talley, 1999, p. 27)

The fact is that the Madison view of schooling represents the predominant traditional and conservative model of instruction that has held sway in American schools for the better part of the twentieth century. Focusing on rote learning of pre-established material, there is little room for students’ own questions, concerns or individual ways of learning. While being exposed to one form of technology use, these students are being prepared to perform relatively routine jobs that do not require complex thinking or continuous learning. Their view of learning is likely to remain as something that happens in schools during teenage years. Unfortunately, the ability to use one’s mind flexibly remains a better guarantee of success in the workplace than facility with the latest technology. The contrast between these two settings can be summarized by saying that one seeks an efficient mechanism for the delivery of instruction, while the second seeks a rich environment in which students learn to use their minds well.

Considering Learning as the Best Use of Technology

To suggest that simply using technology will bring about all needed changes in education is simplistic. The presence of technology alone will not change schools. But technology integrated into effective learning environments by reflective and flexible educators will assist in the restructuring of classroom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

56

practices for the benefit of all learners. So, what are some additional considerations likely to increase the benefit to learners from the optimum use of information technology, beyond those already discussed?

Throughout this article there has been a growing insistence upon the need to consider the learner, learning needs, the context, sustainability, and sound educational principles as the beginning point to the appropriate use of information technologies in learning. The challenge is, not only to use technology, but to use it appropriately so that students learn with the computer, not just from it. Norman Coombs (2000), Chair of EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information – http://www.rit.edu/~easi), provides an apt summary of these injunctions. He says it is about people, not technology. He suggests that the first task is to find out how best the technology works and use it to advantage – not to force it to do what it is not good at. Andy Covell (2000), Director of Information Technology in the School of Management at Syracuse University (http://www.som.syr.edu/ facstaff/abcovell), mirrors this advice by suggesting that every tool has a place, and that it is the teacher’s professional responsibility to find that place. No real choice exists here for teachers because of what Gilbert (1999) refers to as an irreversible transformation. He claims that the point of no return has been passed in the evolution of education, that no one knows the exact direction of the evolutionary movement, and that the increasing role of technology in teaching and learning is only the most obvious sign of that transformation. Despite these signs, however, maintaining a focus on learning and a strong belief in the positive potential of technology use is crucial and confirms that perhaps technology should not be viewed as a causal factor in educational reform, but rather as an enabling factor.

It remains clear to me that the value of any technology for education is proportional to the need for that technology in realizing educational objectives. The differences described earlier between instruction before and after the adoption of information technologies depend more, in my view, on pedagogical paradigm shifts than on the technology itself (see Schuyler, 1999). A truism here is that instructional technology requires careful use by skilled educational operators. In order for it to be effective, the technology must be transparent to the learner and allow for ubiquitous learning opportunities. This remains a prerequisite for effective learning if technology is to be incorporated.

On the topic of the most effective style for optimum technological benefit, it is another truism to reiterate that most education is shaped by a mixture of instrumental and transformative purposes; and that different uses of technology can support different combinations of those purposes. It was made clear by the case studies at Madison and Richmond that on-line technologies will not necessarily improve or cause changes in learning by themselves. What improves learning are well-designed instructional experiences. D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

57

It has also been made clear by the many examples available on the Web (for example, http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/tl/), that on-line learning environments have many capabilities and carry the potential to widen options and opportunities available to teachers and to learners. The use of this technology is virtually unlimited. However, the key to changing the conditions for improving learning is in how these options and opportunities are utilized by teachers and learners.

From a pedagogical standpoint, the Internet is an interactive communications medium that can be used to encourage active, meaningful, and authentic learning (Romig, 1998). In the face of this unlimited resource, traditional, teacher-centered instruction has become pedagogically limiting in comparison to any variety of technology-based classroom activities, because active learning tools promoting active learning are built into technology-based instruction.

Further, teaching with technology shifts the roles adopted by educational institutions, teachers and students in the past. Flexible delivery of instruction, for example, makes the learning environment more learner-centered and less institution or instructor-centered (Sullivan, 1997). So, the best use of information technology is to be familiar with the full array of capabilities and be flexible enough to apply them to learners’ needs and learning situations as the occasion dictates.

So, perhaps the focus for these discussions should not be considerations of the styles of teaching and learning that favor technology use, because we have seen how technologies can be used to support a variety of disparate learning situations. Rather, the discussion could become an exposition of the process of enhancing learning with the best use of appropriate information technologies.

The evidence suggests that there are multiple pedagogical possibilities inherent in a technology-based, student-centered learning environment. Yet the success of these environments rests on a teacher’s ability to recognize that all learners develop a preferred and consistent set of behaviors or approaches to their own learning and have individual needs that can be provided for through a mediated, technology-based, student-centered environment. It is also clear that the model of teaching and learning adopted in any classroom is influenced by the teacher’s conception of learning. A teacher’s mental model of what learning is, influences the approaches taken to the design of the learning environment and the types of strategies used.

A Pedagogy of Learning

It is often argued that certain teaching styles or learning styles are incompatible. While it is true that some identifiable teaching styles are often derived from vastly different philosophies related to beliefs about how learners learn, or how learning occurs, in practice it is inappropriate to argue that one style is necessarily incompatible with or more effective than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

58

another, without first referencing learner, objective and context. The knowledge instruction and knowledge construction classrooms referred to earlier, while dramatically different, are not necessarily incompatible. Rather, they may be viewed as equally defensible positions on a continuum of possible teaching strategies available to the discerning teacher concerned with a variety of learners, a variety of learning objectives, and a variety of learning contexts.

Direct instruction, drill-and-practice, and lecture are all appropriate strategies to consider when introducing some skills or concepts, to build awareness or to reinforce habits or a set of defined actions when time is limited or when particular learners are involved. On the other hand, if depth of understanding is the desired outcome and students are expected to personalize and internalize ideas, to solve problems, to explore ideas, to generate solutions, and to synthesize knowledge, a constructivist approach to learning might be more appropriate with some students.

The central issue in this debate is not whether one form of learning environment is more supportive of technology use, or whether effective use of technology is more compatible with a certain style of teaching. The issue is, and always should remain, the learner and the learning objective that is to be accomplished in a particular learning environment. This imposes upon teachers the responsibility to be aware of their students and of what they are trying to accomplish with their students – to reflect upon the goals they have established and the tasks they have set for learners – and to select learning strategies (and appropriate applications of technology) that best accomplish those objectives.

Despite my opening gambit related to the driving habits of males, or rather, the apparent lack of evidence suggesting any degree of comfort whatsoever with the practice of stopping to ask for directions when in command of the family car – or any moving vehicle for that matter – I would like to recant – somewhat. Writ large on my office door at the University are the words: Whatever works! Those words imply a great deal. In the first instance, you would expect a rather pragmatic approach to most things from the person within. While there may be some dispute about how widely that might apply, particularly when my driving habits are taken into consideration – when it comes to educational practice there is very little doubt – in my mind at least. The most effective learning environment is that in which the teacher, the facilitator, the guide, the instructor is capable of selecting from a wide variety, the most appropriate strategy to accomplish the learning objectives designed to benefit the individual learner and to satisfy individual learning needs.

Hence the title of this last section ... A Pedagogy of Learning! Rather a mouthful of contradictions, particularly as I have coined the term to suggest a reduction of emphasis upon the teaching process in favor of an emphasis upon learning. As far as Webster is concerned, a pedagogue is one who instructs in a pedantic or dogmatic manner, preferring actions that are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

59

characterized by pedantic formality! Further, pedagogy refers to those actions pertaining to or characteristic of teaching. Quite an unfortunate term! While the dictionary insists upon mentioning the words pedantic and teaching together, and appears rather contemptuous of the pedagogue as paying undue attention to book learning and formal rules without having an understanding or experience of practical affairs, my emphasis in this new phrase is to stress the importance of flexibility, of real and authentic learning, and of the importance of the learner as the core of any learning process. Despite having this phrase focus on learning, the role of the teacher has not been removed from the process; clearly, it has been changed dramatically, and moved to one side to allow the learner to be at the center of the activity.

You will have noticed by now that the emphasis in this section of the article has switched from looking specifically at technology and at pedagogy, to the point at which both of these concepts intersect – the illusive intersection of technology and pedagogy. Who would have thought at the beginning of the drive that we would have ended up looking squarely at a road map of the learner? The latest technology and the most popular pedagogy of the day cannot be effective unless individual learner needs drive the educative process. When considering styles of teaching and learning, the central question for all educators is what should drive the process of learning – the preferences of the teacher or the needs of individual learners.

Rather than driving on for hours, not knowing whether the road being followed will end up at the expected destination or not, the driver, male or female, should stop and ask directions. The learner is always close by.

Correspondence

Ian W. Gibson, Department of Administration, Counseling, Educational and School Psychology, 105M Hubbard Hall, Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67260, USA (ian.gibson@wichita.edu).

References

Bialo, E. & Sivin, J. (1990) Report of the Effectiveness of Microcomputers in Schools. Washington: Software Publishers Association.

Brunner, C. & Talley, W. (1999) New Media Literacy Handbook. New York: Doubleday.

Cantor, J. A. (1992) Delivering Instruction to Adult Learners. Toronto: Wall & Emerson.

Coombs, N. (2000) Easi: equal access to software and information [on-line]. Available at: http://www.rit.edu/~easi

Cotton, K. (1991) Computer-assisted Instruction. School Improvement Research Series, Close-up #10. Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ian W. Gibson

60

Covell, A. (2000) Digital Convergence: how the merging of computers, communications, and multimedia is changing our lives [on-line]. Available at: http://www.digital-convergence.com/welcome.htm

Cranton, P. (1992) Working with Adult Learners. Toronto: Wall & Emerson.

Dwyer, D. C. (1996) The Imperative to Change our Schools, in C. Fisher, D. Dwyer & K. Yocam (Eds) (1996) Education and Technology: reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990a) The Evolution of Teachers’ Instructional Beliefs and Practices in High-Access-to-Technology Classrooms. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Spring.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990b) Teacher Beliefs and Practices Part I: patterns of change. Cupertino: Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, Apple Computer.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990c) Teacher Beliefs and Practices Part II: support for change. Cupertino: Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, Apple Computer.

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, S. (1999). TLTG Online Multimedia Workshop. Presented 8 October 1999. Available at: http://tltgroup.org/online/mmpregform.htm

Goodlad, J. (1984) A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Grégoire, R., Bracewell, R. & Laferrière, T. (1996) The Contribution of New Technologies to Learning and Teaching in Elementary and Secondary Schools [on-line]. Available at: http://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/fr/html/impactnt.html

Honey, M., McMillan-Culp, K. & Spielvogel, R. (1999) Critical Issue: using technology to improve student achievement. Series: pathways to school improvement. Naperville: Center for Children and Technology. Also available on-line at the Northern Central Regional Educational Laboratory web site: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm

Kearsley, G (1996) Cognitive/Learning Styles. Washington: George Washington University. Also available on-line at: http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu:80/~kearsley/styles.html

Knapp, L. R. & Glenn, A. D. (1996) Restructuring Schools with Technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Litzinger, M. & Osif, B. (1993) Accommodating Diverse Learning Styles: designing instruction for electronic information sources, in L. Shirato (Ed.) What is Good Instruction Now? Library Instruction for the 90s. Ann Arbor: Pierian Press.

Maddox, C. D. (1986) Issues and Concerns in Special Education Microcomputing, Computers in the Schools, 3(3-4), p. 3.

Maurer, M. M. & Davidson, G. S. (1998) Leadership in Instructional Technology. Columbus: Merrill.

McClintock, R. & Taipale, K. A. (1994) Educating America for the 21st Century [on-line]. Available at: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/docs/ILTplan.html D

ownl

oade

d by

[Sa

n Jo

se S

tate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:08

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

61

Means, B. & Olsen, K. (1993) Supporting School Reform with Educational Technology. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Spring.

Moran, T. (1999) What’s The Big Picture for Education, Society and the Future? Focus paper for Education 2010, Brisbane, June 2000. Available on-line at: http://www.education.qld.gov.au/corporate/qse2010/

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997) The New Professional Teacher [on-line]. Available at: http://www.ncate.org/specfoc/techrpt.html

Office of Technology Assessment (1995) Teachers & Technology: making the connection. Report No. OTA-HER-616. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

Read, S. E. (1999) Suggestions for Parents and Other Adult Supervisors of Learners. Tahlequah: Oklahoma Institute for Learning Styles, Northeastern State University College of Education International Research Center. Also available on-line at: http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~oil/pages/ls.htm

Riley, R. (1999) The American High School in the 21st Century. Paper presented at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, 15 September. Washington, DC: US Secretary of Education. Also available on-line at: http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/09-1999/990915.html

Romig, J. (1998) Creating a Web-based Learning Environment: vision of the virtual university. Presented at the University of Southern Carolina Stop Surfing – Start Teaching 1998 National Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, February.

Schuyler, G. (1999) A Paradigm Shift From Instruction to Learning [on-line]. Available at: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ERIC/digests/dig9802.html

Shanker, A. (1990) The End of the Traditional Model of Schooling – and a Proposal for Using Incentives to Restructure Our Public Schools, Phi Delta Kappan, January, pp. 345-357.

Sheingold, K. & Hadley, M. (1990) Accomplished Teachers: integrating computers into classroom practice. Boston: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education.

Sullivan, E. (1997) Campus Technology Trends, Educational Record, 78, pp. 35-36.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ian W. Gibson

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

17:

08 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014