Pedagogy 2.0: Fulfilling the Educational Needs of a Digital Native Society

2,976 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,976
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pedagogy 2.0: Fulfilling the Educational Needs of a Digital Native Society

  1. 1. Chapter 1 1.0 Introduction1.0.1 Background and context of the problemStudents of 21st century have an aversion towards chalk and board which has existed for morethan a century as effective tools of education. Frand states ―most students entering ourcolleges and universities today are younger than the microcomputer, are more comfortableworking on a keyboard than writing in a spiral notebook, and are happier reading from acomputer screen than from paper in hand‖ (Frand, 2000, p. 15). According to Marc Prensky,this gap is created by the rapid distribution and omnipresence of digital technologies in thelast decades of the 20th century (2001a)In ―Digital Immigrants, Digital Natives,‖ Prensky (2001a) notes people that are currently inkindergarten through traditional college have immersed their entire lives using computers,playing video games, using digital music players, video cameras, cell phones, and theInternet. Today‘s average college graduates have spent less than 5,000 hours of their livesreading, over 10,000 hours playing video games, and an incredible 20,000 hours viewingtelevision within the first 20 years of their lives (Prensky, 2001a). These readily availabletechnological advancements from a young age create different experiences, which lead todifferent brain structures than previous generations that did not have these technologicaladvancements (Prensky, 2001a). Due to fundamental differences between generations asPrensky (2001a, 2001b) states that those who are above 30 years old and not born intotechnological diffusion, a different classification for this group is necessary; after all Prenskymentions that non-digital immigrants do inherently process information differently than theirparents and grandparents. In searching for a proper classification, Prensky notes that some
  2. 2. people refer to this generation as the net-gen or digital generation. Prensky classifies thisgeneration as Digital Natives.―Our students are all ‗native speakers‘ of the digital language of computers, video games, andthe Internet‖ (Prensky, 2001a, p.1). While Prensky discusses the topic of Digital Immigrantsand Digital Natives as students, for the context of this study the researcher will refer to thesegroups as Digital Native students and Digital Immigrant teachers (under 30 and above 30years of age respectively).Social Scientist Bernard D‘sami calls it a divide between children and teachers wrought outby the use of digital technology, which enables the students, especially those from theaffluent sections to gather vast information in areas that they are interested in.Recently, a teacher in Chennai city was taking a science lesson for the 8th standard studentswhen one of the students questioned her ability to teach and ridiculed her of using foullanguage. Others joined in and the class soon turned unruly. Authorities suspended thestudent and referred him to a counselor. ―Adolescents openly flout our authority in the class.It makes it difficult, especially for senior teachers‖ says the Principal.All migrants have specific goals when they migrate and become citizens of a given country(Jupp 1966).Migration into a new environment, the impact of globalization and thetechnological explosion in the ―Information Age‖ left many committed and highlyprofessional teachers in a dilemma of unfamiliarity. They became the ‗displaced persons‘(Panich, 1988) of the Knowledge Economy. They could either accept or reject the influx oftechnology into their world, but eventually it became evident that technology was here tostay. Like all immigrants, these teachers needed to be en-cultured into the cultural practicesof the Information Age to allow multiculturalism (Zubrzycki) and cultural pluralism (Smoliczas cited in Cope, Castle & Kalantzis, 1991) to flourish for social unity, which could finallylead to assimilation into the Knowledge Economy. While this would be the ideal state the
  3. 3. reality of migration is often the feeling of being on the fringe and encountering unforeseenpressures and challenges. The NCPB (Non Computer Practising Background) teachers wereunsure of their skills, lacked confidence and were not fully comfortable with the technology.These digital immigrants often went through perezhivanie (Vygotsky) as they were uncertainabout their new experience and the process; they went through the deep tensions ofapprehension, fear and all the strong vocabulary connected with living through or living overa new and unfamiliar experience, (Vygotsky 1934/1978 as cited in Wells and Claxton 2002)before they migrated and during their migration into the Information Age.Digital Immigrants learners are people, who access, process and utilize information for aparticular need or a particular end. Experienced teachers as learners for the 21st century havebeen displaced from their zone of learning and have gone through a culture shock. They wereforced to migrate into the Information Age. Their first impressions have been apprehensiveand like all immigrants, they go through a number of unique experiences and finally blendtwo worlds; the pre-digital and digital. They find that the digital natives, (Prensky 2001a;2001b) including their own students speak a different language and function in a differentenvironment. Initially, these experienced teachers as digital immigrants went throughperezhivanie. They were unsure of their skills, lacked confidence and were not fullycomfortable with the technology. Nonetheless, as they acquired the skills, confidence andbecame comfortable, they were ready to share their knowledge and skills in order to learn tocope in their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky 1978).1.0.2 Definitions of terms 1. Digital ImmigrantsAccording to Marc Prensky (2003) those who are not born into the digital word but sometime later in their lives become fascinated about this and adopted many or most of the aspectsof the technology are known as Digital Immigrants.
  4. 4. ―A technology user who is above the age of thirty who was not born into the digital world isknown as Digital Immigrant‖ Brooks- Young (2005)2. Digital Natives―A technology user under the age of 30 who was born into technology world is known asDigital Natives‖ Brooks - Young (2005)―Digital Natives are those people who have spent their entire lives surrounded by and usingcomputers, video games, cell phones and all the toys and tools of digital age.‖ Marc Prensky(2003). Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallelprocess and multitask. They have an aversion towards text and more inclination towardsgraphics.3. Digital DivideDigital Divide refers to a significant difference in the access to and equity to technologyexperience with regard to the status of income race and location of living. It includes theimbalance both in physical access to technology and the resources and skills needed toeffectively participate as a digital citizen. The term global digital divide refers to differencesin access between countries in regards to the internet and its means of information flow.4. Web 2.0Originally in 2004, Web 2.0 was referred to as this idea of the "Web as a platform". Theearlier concept was such that the web is a repository from where browsers collected relevantdata when actually it was a platform that allowed people to get things donePeople say web 2.0 is outcome of some programming tools which were later added in to thehtml which included AJAX and SOAP and other XML and JavaScript applications that
  5. 5. allowed the readers to actually interact with the Web pages more like you would with anapplication on your desktop.Now Web 2.0 is really starting to mean a combination of the technology (like AJAX)allowing the customers to actually interact with the information. Web 2.0 is starting to meanthe situation where amateur writers and developers are able to create applications and Websites that get more credibility than traditional news sources and software vendors. Thiscombination of powerful JavaScript tools like AJAX enabling nearly anyone to contribute toand interact with the data that we are all working with is web 2.0.5. Social Software ToolsAmong Web 2.0 technologies are the socially-based tools and systems referred to collectivelyas social software, a term that has gained increased currency in recent years. The attributes ofthese new software tools make possible a new wave of online behavior, distributedcollaboration, and social interaction, and they are already having a transformative effect onsociety in general and education in particular, triggering changes in how we communicateand learn. Researcher/theorist Mejias (2005, p. 1) observed that ―social software canpositively impact pedagogy by inculcating a desire to reconnect to the world as whole, notjust the social part that exists online,‖ referring to the isolating and decontextualizedexperience of much text-based traditional education. Social software‘s include both Web 1.0and web 2.0 technologies as they contribute to participation, productivity and personalization.Social Software Tools Social Software Examples Potential Pedagogical Category ApplicationsMulti-player online Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs); Simulation; role play;gaming environments / Massively-Multiplayer Online visualization; collaboration
  6. 6. virtual worlds Games (MMOGs – e.g., Second Life, Active Worlds, World of Warcraft, Everquest)Discourse facilitation Synchronous: Instant messaging Communication (verbal andsystems (IM, e.g., Windows Live written); engagement with Messenger, AOL Instant multiple global communities; Messenger, Yahoo Instant socialization; tracking of Messenger, Google Chat, ICQ, information flow; peer-to- Skype); chat Asynchronous: peer exchange and feedback Email; bulletin boards; discussion boards; moderated commenting systems (e.g., K5, Slashdot, Plastic)Content management Blogs; wikis; document Creation and disseminationsystems management systems (e.g., Plone); of ideas; collaborative web annotation systems writing, publishing, and peer reviewPeer-to-peer file BitTorrent; Gnutella; Napster; Sharing, review, andsharing systems Limewire; Kazaa; Morpheus; collaboration eMule; iMeshLearning management Blackboard/WebCT; ANGEL; Communication, groupwork;systems Moodle; .LRN; Sakai; ATutor; distribution and sharing of Claroline; Dokeos resourcesRelationship MySpace; Friendster; Facebook; Establishing and maintainingmanagement systems Faceparty; Orkut; eHarmony; Bebo social contacts, connectivity; spaces for communication
  7. 7. and creation of identitySyndication systems List-servs; RSS aggregators Multi-modal access to information; maintaining links with new content; filtering and customized display of contentDistributed Social bookmarking sites (e.g., Tagging/categorizingclassification del.icio.us, Digg, Furl); many resources; maintainingsystems(folksonomy) media sharing and social sharable collections of networking sites also make use of resources; reuse of resources; tag-based folksonomies to organize development and joint and classify content exploration of common interests 6. Pedagogy 2.0It is a framework that aims to focus on desired learning outcomes in order to exploit morefully the affordances and potential for connectivity enabled by Web 2.0 and social softwaretools. It is envisioned as an overarching concept for an emerging cluster of practices thatadvocates learner choice and self- direction as well as engagement in flexible, relevantlearning tasks and strategies. Though not intended a prescriptive framework, it distills anumber of guidelines characterizing effective learning environments, such as choice ofresources, tasks, learning supports, and communication modalities, as follows:
  8. 8. • Content: Should consist of micro units of content that augment thinking and cognition. It may include a wide variety of learner- generated resources accrued from students creating, sharing, and revising of ideas. • Curriculum: Should not be static but dynamic. It should be open to discussion and learners input. The modules should be divided into small chunks. It should assimilate formal and informal learning. • Communication: Students should have multiple opportunities to interact with their peer and conduct discussions along with the support of technology enabled learning which stimulate their visual, auditory and logic skills. • Learning processes: Learning should happen within the context of real life experience so that they can relate learning to their lives. • Resources: Should include multiple informal and formal sources that are rich in multimedia. The various Web Based Applications and Computer Based Applications should be utilized in the class to support the learner. • Scaffolds: The students should be assured with support from the teachers, parents, community and the peer to do more experiments which can leverage their knowledge base. • Learning tasks: Learning process should become personalized, experimental and learner driven this will enable the creation of innovative contents from the part of the learner. 7. Social mediaIt includes web-based and mobile technologies used to turn communication into interactivedialogue. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0,
  9. 9. and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content." Social media is mediafor social interaction as a super-set beyond social communication. Enabled by ubiquitouslyaccessible and scalable communication techniques, social media has substantially changedthe way organizations, communities, and individuals communicate. 8. DIY culture(Do it yourself) It is a broad term that refers to a wide range of elements in non-mainstream society, such as grassroots political and social activism, independent music, art, and film, derived from the DIY tradition.DIY culture says ―no‖ to the idea that there is an established answer. It says ―yes‖ toempower an individual to develop answers for herself. DIY culture is not new. In fact, it‘salways existed. It‘s part of our unique make up as human beings, the thing that separates usfrom the rest of the animal world.We don‘t merely exist in the world that is presented to us. We use our environment, wemanipulate tools, and we actively form patterns of thought that help us cope with stress andanxiety. 9. User-generated contentUser Generated Content (UGC) covers a range of contents available through different formsof media which has come up with the innovations happened in the field of technology. Theterm was widely used after the birth of web 2.0 which utilized the user generated content .Ithas caused the expansion of media production through new technologies that are free for thegeneral public to use and at times to make their contributions to the content. Most of thetechnologies came up after the web 2.0 which ranges from YouTube, wikis, flicker etc belongto the larger ambit of user generated content. It also involves the movement of free software‘s
  10. 10. and open source software which open the access to the general public who likes to contributeand build their skills thus breaking the barriers of collaboration. Productivity*Learner created content*Contribution to knowledge*Creativity and innovation1.1 Designing of Pedagogy 2.0 Presentation*Learner Agency* Learner Choice*Customizationxh Participation *Communication *Collaboration *Connectivity
  11. 11. Pedagogy 2.0 Objective of the study 1.2 Objectives of the Study The study explores the difficulties faced by digital immigrant teachers in coping with the digital native students and their ways of gathering knowledge. How social learning tool can enrich teaching learning process To explore whether Pedagogy 2.0 can take over the traditional pedagogy. To understand the possiblties of Learner Centric Approach in classroom. 1.3 AssumptionsThe students who study in Pondicherry University have problems with their teachers whostick on to the old successful method of teacher centric pedagogy. They have less attentionspan for the classes handled by these teachers. The comments collected are from studentsbelow 23 years age, studying in Pondicherry University with basic orientation to technology.In the discussion they have included their previous experiences from other institutions wherethey have pursued studies. Chapter 2
  12. 12. 2.0 Review of literatureAccording to Marc Prensky ―Our students have changed radically. Today‘s students are nolonger the people our educational system was designed to teach.‖ A really big discontinuityhas taken place. One might even call it a ―singularity‖ – an event which changes things sofundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called ―singularity‖ is thearrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century.Today‘s students – K through college – represent the first generations to grow up with thisnew technology. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers,videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools ofthe digital age. Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging areintegral parts of their lives‖.Digital Immigrants are those who were not born into the digital world but have, at some laterpoint in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the newtechnology. The importance of the distinction is this: As Digital Immigrants learn – like allimmigrants, some better than others – to adapt to their environment, they always retain, tosome degree, their old accent that is, their foot in the past.There are hundreds of examples of the digital immigrant accent. They include printing outyour email.It‘s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our DigitalImmigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), arestruggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.But Digital Immigrants typically have very little appreciation for these new skills that theNatives have acquired and perfected through years of interaction and practice. These skills
  13. 13. are almost totally foreign to the Immigrants, who themselves learned – and so choose to teach– slowly, step-by-step, one thing at a time, individually, and above all, seriously.Digital Immigrants don‘t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV orlistening to music, because they (the Immigrants) can‘t. Of course not – they didn‘t practicethis skill constantly for all of their formative years. Digital Immigrants think learning can‘t(or shouldn‟ t) be fun. Why should they – they didn‟ t spend their formative years learningwith Sesame Street.Unfortunately for our Digital Immigrant teachers, the people sitting in their classes grew upon the ―twitch speed‖ of video games and MTV. They are used to the instantaneity ofhypertext, downloaded music, phones in their pockets, a library on their laptops, beamedmessages etc.Today‘s learners are different. ―Www.hungry.com‖ said a kindergarten student recently atlunchtime. ―Every time I go to school I have to power down,‖ complains a high-schoolstudent. Is it that Digital Natives can‘t pay attention, or that they choose not to? Often fromthe Natives point of view their Digital Immigrant instructors make their education not worthpaying attention to compared to everything else they experience – and then they blame themfor not paying attention!It is highly unlikely the Digital Natives will go backwards. In the first place, it may beimpossible – their brains may already be different. It also flies in the face of everything weknow about cultural migration. Kids born into any new culture learn the new languageeasily, and forcefully resist using the old. Smart adult immigrants accept that they don‘tknow about their new world and take advantage of their kids to help them learn and integrate.Not-so-smart (or not-so-flexible) immigrants spend most of their time grousing about howgood things were in the ―old country.
  14. 14. It seems to me that after the digital ―singularity‖ there are now two kinds of content:―Legacy‖ content (to borrow the computer term for old systems) and ―Future‖ content.As educators, we need to be thinking about how to teach both Legacy and Future content inthe language of the Digital Natives. The first involves a major translation and change ofmethodology; the second involves all that PLUS new content and thinking. It‘s not actuallyclear to me which is harder – ―learning new stuff‖ or ―learning new ways to do old stuff.‖ Isuspect it‘s the latter.In geography – which is all but ignored these days – there is no reason that a generation thatcan memorize over 100 Pokémon characters with all their characteristics, history andevolution can‘t learn the names, populations, capitals and relationships of all the 101 nationsin the world. It just depends on how it is presented.So if Digital Immigrant educators really want to reach Digital Natives – i.e. all their students– they will have to change. It‘s high time for them to stop their grousing, and as the Nikemotto of the Digital Native generation says, ―Just do it!‖ They will succeed in the long run –and their successes will come that much sooner if their administrators support them. Social constructivist forms of participation allows comments and annotations byothers, and, furthermore, by contributing to extant communities of interest by sharingresources. Therefore, not only is this element of Pedagogy 2.0 reflective of the ―participationmodel of learning‖ (Sfard, 1998), as opposed to the ―acquisition‖ model, but it also adds afurther dimension to participative learning by increasing the level of socialization andcollaboration with experts, community, and peer groups, and by fostering connections thatare often global in reach. Jenkins (2007, p. 51)By harnessing digital technologies and social software tools, four key areas pivotal to thedevelopment of personalization through teaching are summarized by Green, Facer, Rudd,
  15. 15. Dillon, and Humphreys (2006). According to these researchers, pedagogy must do thefollowing: ensure that learners are capable of making informed educational decisions; diversify and recognize different forms of skills and knowledge; create diverse learning environments; include learner-focused forms of feedback and assessment.Personal Learning Environments (PLE‘s), defined by Siemens (2007a), as ―a collection oftools, brought together under the conceptual notion of openness, interoperability, and learnercontrol. As such, they are comprised of two elements – the tools and the conceptual notionsthat drive how and why we select individual parts‖ (para. 2). Moving on from LMS‘s, thePLE concept represents the latest step towards an alternative approach to e-learning. UnlikeLMS‘s that take a course-centric view of learning, PLE‘s are learner-centric. The idea is tohave learners exercise greater control over their learning experience, rather than beconstrained by centralized, instructor- controlled learning.Many higher education students currently lack the competencies necessary to navigate andselect relevant sources from the overabundance of information available (Windham, 2005). Inthe age of personal publishing and user- generated content, essential digital literacy skills arerequired to locate quality sources and assess them for objectivity, reliability, and currency(Katz & Macklin, 2007).Early adopters of digital media opportunities involved the integration of new media modes,forms, and genres into learning activities. These have included wikis, blogs, video logs, textmessaging, email, hypermedia, and more (Ganley, 2004).
  16. 16. Students need to develop expertise and confidence in finding, evaluating, creating, andsharing ideas, which often involves complex critical thinking skills (Jenkins, 2007; Lorenzo& Dziuban, 2006).They also need to become a global citizen, capable of communicating and working in diversecontexts. These benefits, however, need to be accompanied by pedagogical interventions thatequip students with the skills needed to operate in a digital culture and that use media toenrich their learning and develop essential literacy skills, while ensuring that there is a shift in―the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement‖ (Jenkins,2007, p. 4)Knowledge does not exist in individual minds but is a product of participation in culturalpractices, and learning is embedded in multiple networks of distributed individuals engagingin a variety of social processes, including dialogue, modeling, and ―legitimate peripheralparticipation‖ (Lave & Wenger, 1991).Recent research attests to a growing appreciation of the importance of the learner‘s self-direction and control over the whole learning process (Fazey & Fazey, 2001; Narciss, Proske,& Koerndle, 2007). Evidence suggests that we can improve learning effectiveness by givingthe learner control over, and responsibility for their own learning (Dron, 2007; Nesbit &Winne, 2003). This is the foundation for such approaches as problem-based and inquiry-based learning (Desharnais & Limson, 2007; Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999), and is central tothe grand vision of Pedagogy 2.0, where learners have the freedom to decide how to engagein personally meaningful learning.According to Dron (2006), students will fall victims of de-motivation, boredom and desultoryowing to the incorrigible stands adopted by the digital immigrant teachers. Web 2.0 andsocial software inculcate learners to make decisions that hit their goals and needs forconnection and social interaction.
  17. 17. T.R.Ramakrishnan and Dr.K.Puttaraju(2010) ―In the survey using a schedule from a sampleof 100 students. Using relevant statistical tool, projects that they are very emotionallyattached to the gadget and feel depressed when taken away from them among both genders.The research conducted was among the bachelors of business management and mediastudents for the purpose of identifying the student psychosis on using the mobile phones. Thefindings state that the students go through a depression which affects their studies, socialconnection and result in dislike of the teachers who have captured their mobiles as adisciplinary measure.‖―Apart from choosing which resources and sites to subscribe and contribute to, which tools touse, and how and where to use them, we are witnessing a shift in the modalities of expressionthat are now available‖ (Jenkins, 2007).. By harnessing digital technologies and social software tools, four key areas pivotal to thedevelopment of personalization through teaching are summarized by Green, Facer, Rudd,Dillon, and Humphreys (2006). According to these researchers, pedagogy must do thefollowing: Ensure that learners are capable of making informed educational decisions; Diversify and recognize different forms of skills and knowledge; Create diverse learning environments; Include learner-focused forms of feedback and assessment.The rise of student-generated content or student performance content (Boettecher, 2006). Forexample, in recent years the e-Portfolio (Abrami & Barrett, 2005; Love, McKean, &Gathercoal, 2002) has emerged as popular strategy for capturing and organizing student-generated content
  18. 18. Chapter 3 3.0 Methodology3.0.1 IntroductionThe student‘s perception about teacher has an influence in his/her interest in the subject andattention span (Albert Bandura‘s Social Learning Theory). Technology has incurredinformation explosion which has facilitated students to choose information from wide rangeof sources. In this scenario teachers role as the knowledge repository is being questioned andthe students rely more on online repositories to access knowledge. Therefore, the role ofteachers in educational institutions has to be redefined with special emphasis to theirpedagogy. The study try to understand whether by integrating technology into the teachingframework the role of teachers as facilitators can be improved.3.0.2 Context of the studyIn an incident, a 12th standard student from Chennai slits the throat of his Hindi teacher forwriting rigorous comments about his studies in the progress card. Teachers form different
  19. 19. quarters of India complain of a sea change in the attitude of students towards closedclassroom. The same phenomenon unfolded in the west during the diffusion of technology inlater 90‘s. The study is based on the ideas presented by the educationalists, technologists andpsychologists from the west to tackle the crisis.The student‘s perception about teacher has an influence in his/her interest in the subject andattention span (Albert Bandura‘s Social Learning Theory). Advancements in technology hascaused information explosion which has enabled students to choose information fromdifferent sources. In this context, the teacher is estranged as a credible source of informationwhich is taken over by wikis and other sources of information. Therefore, the role of teachersin educational institutions has to be reinstated provided the teachers revamp their pedagogyby integrating technology into the framework.3.0.3 SampleThe digital native students are ones who suffer because of the drawbacks of digital immigrantteachers in adapting to technology. It is by understanding the problems faced by the nativestudents that we can formulate right suggestions to the teachers. Thus the study used thequalitative method of Focus Group discussion as its Research Method. The focus groupdiscussion was conducted for finding out the problems faced by the digital native students inthe classes handled by their digital immigrant teachers during the course of their study inDept. of Mass Communication, Pondicherry University (2010-2012).The focus group discussion was found the most appropriate method for the research becausethe students can share their thoughts on the specific problems the researcher needs to focus.Before selecting the members for the focus group discussion, a prospective list of studentswas prepared. On the basis of this they were met and asked questions to verify that they comeunder the title of Digital Natives. From the list of 20 students the focus group was narrowed
  20. 20. downed to a list of seven members. They were given prior notice about the place and time forthe focus group discussion.The students came from different backgrounds and they got acquainted with technologyduring their course of studies. None of them have certified training in using any of theapplication software. They learned it through frequent experimentation.3.0.4 Data CollectionAll the seven students selected for the focus group discussion were asked 10 questions. Theyall had to respond to all the 10 questions. There was a consensus that there won‘t be anyexternal intervention during the sharing. Each of them was given 10 minutes to respond to thequestions. All the questions were open ended which helped to elicit more information fromthe group. The information they provided were mostly from the experience from their studiesin Pondicherry University. They were comfortable to answer the questions as all the memberswere from the same Department. The focus group discussion lasted for one hour and fifteenminutes. All the participants actively joined for the discussion. As there was no interruptioncaused either by the group members or by any external factors the discussion went verysmoothly.3.0.5 Theoretic PerspectiveThe social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the mostinfluential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts oftraditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account forall types of learning.His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information andbehaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), thistype of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors.
  21. 21. There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. First is the idea thatpeople can learn through observation. Next is the idea that internal mental states are anessential part of this process. Finally, this theory recognizes that just because something hasbeen learned, it does not mean that it will result in a change in behavior.3.0.6 The studyThis study is about the widening the gap between the students of modern generation andteachers from the old generation and its effect on the teaching, learning process. The sociallearning theory propounded by Albert Bandura says that students‘ perception about theteacher has an effect on the attention span of students. The digital native students havedeveloped a gap with their old generation teachers. The teachers‘ estrangement to technologyhas widened the gap further. This study propounds Pedagogy 2.0 which is the assimilation ofParticipation, Presentation and Production for bridging this gap.3.0.7 Content analysisThe researcher chose qualitative content analysis as his methodology do the research.According to Bernard Bereslon, Content Analysis is a research technique for the objective,systematic, and quantitative description of noticeable content of communications (Bereslon,1974). Qualitative content analysis requires the researcher to select the samples prior to theanalysis and also make a coding system to analyse the selected data. Qualitative analysis goesbeyond merely counting words or extracting objective content from texts to examinemeanings, themes and patterns that may be manifest or latent in a particular text. It allowsresearchers to understand social reality in a subjective but scientific manner (Zhang andWildemuth,).In this study the researcher analyses the answers that came up during the focus groupdiscussion conducted among 7 students studying in Pondicherry University, MassCommuincation Department.
  22. 22. Chapter 4 4.0 Data AnalysisThe findings are based on the focus group discussion instituted in a group of 7 students fromthe Dept. of Mass Communication, Pondicherry University. The students are from a Digitalnative background. The findings listed below are divided on the basis of specific answerswhich came up during the focus group discussion. “I can find more interesting lectures if I go online. Those lectures give us more options to connect with our day-to-day life and they have competition from the rival websites which forces them to update their database in regular intervals. But in the case of our teachers they have no competition so they provide us with old stuff they studied. For me institution is only a platform, I frequently visit websites to gather information rather than accepting what my teacher says in the class.”How can teachers prepare their students for long-term future—as well as for tomorrowwithout sabotaging the legacies of the past. This is not easy but the consensus among expertsis clear. The way for us to move ahead under such circumstances is not to focus only on thechanging technology, but rather redesign learning, with adults and young people taking updifferent roles from the past and on the other hand young people (students) need to focus onusing new tools, finding information, making meaning, and creating. Adults (teachers) mustfocus on questioning, coaching and guiding, providing context, ensuring rigor and meaning,and ensuring quality results. The system of teacher lecturing and giving his labor on students
  23. 23. to make them understand a particular topic is often known as direct instruction.Unfortunately, direct instruction is becoming increasingly ineffective many today‗s students‗number one complaint of their teachers is they just talk and talk and talk. And unfortunatelythe students‘ impression about his teacher is like listening to a static radio. The era oflecturing, talking and teaching has become archaic. The teachers tool of telling has becomeout dated. Yet most teachers were trained to tell. Many of them like explaining and think theyare good at it. Even though they are good the students take their lecturing as Greek and Latin.Thus teachers tend to use this old proverb quite frequently in their class ―I am casting pearlsin front of swine‘s‖ “Yes, in fact the tech savvy teachers are more interested in what we want; they have always an open mind to accept our thoughts. They are also using the same kind of technology that we are using and when we see this we find we are moving in the same wavelength.”Today‗s students are not there to receive, they are often in the electronic world of 21stcentury. Most students recognize and applaud their creative, energetic teachers—especiallythe ones who respect them and care about their opinions. What they like is to connect withother students of their age in other places electronically‖ (e.g., through a secure e-mailservice such as ePals). Inside their classrooms, what students say they find most engaging isgroup work, discussions, sharing their own ideas, and hearing the ideas of their classmates.Students like using technology, the most important thing for them is to be respected asindividuals by their teachers inside their class and not like ignorant. ―We‗re not stupids is auniversal lament‖.
  24. 24. “They feel that technology has made us lazy. This is because we now a day’s seldom goes to the library because we have a lot of information stored on the net and this is an era when all the libraries are opening their digital repositories. So the students are used to reading books online. This at times is not acceptable for many digital immigrant teachers. The fact is, we are not lazy but we are accessing information much faster than what they used to do during their formative years.”Some teachers compare native students‗ capabilities, to that of students of the past. But thereare alternative ways to see our students which is more evident in the 21st century. Today‘sstudents are rockets, their teachers tend to treat them as of early 19‘s but in reality they aresupersonic 21th century self guided missiles (metaphorically). This makes today‘s teachersrocket scientists. Why should we think of today‗s kids as rockets? The first reason is theirspeed; they operate swifter than any of their previous generations. Although little haschanged in the emotional growth of students, there has been an enormous change in theaccumulation of knowledge, and thus their intellectual growth is twice that of their previousgeneration. The most interesting fact is that now a day‘s kids teach their parents how to use theirmobile applications and how to create their ―Facebook‖ accounts. The problem lies in thefuel we use to ignite the rocket. Parents and teachers are still using petrol instead of rocketfuel to ignite them. While some want kids to slow down and ―just be kids, they are asking toroll back their very nature. Increased speed is not the only character that influences thedigital natives. The 21st century upbringing which includes the 5000 minutes video game theyplayed, the number of online friends they established. Like rockets, they often cannot becontrolled at every moment, so the primary target should be set with precision. And becauserockets are difficult to repair in flight, they must be made as self-sufficient as possible. Aswith all rockets, kids fuel mix is arbitrary. Some are super fast some take time to gear up and
  25. 25. some may even miss the target. Some even blow up. As the manufacturing keep up with thepace the quality of the rockets will also improve. Perhaps the most important thing is today‘srockets can reach targets far of reach with better precision guided by technology. So is theDigital Native student. With the arrival of digital technologies many fantasies in the JamesBond movies started becoming materialized which is still an awe-inspiring thing for thedigital immigrants. Digital Natives communicate to larger public within a fraction of splitseconds. They generate contents online of various genres ranging from text, pictures andvideos. They organize themselves socially and politically across the planet. Educators in thismodern era deals with a group of specially engineered students who shouldn‘t be filled withthe educational fuel of the past, because that fuel just doesn‗t make today‗s kids go. We haveto design new fuel and booster. Its impossible to throw away the legacies of the past butunless we start preparing our students to fly higher in a much improved speed, educators rolein shaping them up have less scope. For some teachers Wikipedia and Britanica are like taboo words. If they find this in any of the courtesy list they tend to get annoyed and at times reducing the scores. But when the new generation teachers come in this position they are very keen in understanding how we are using this and not why. In one incident one of my classmates plagiarized an assignment from the internet. My teacher who was tech savvy went into the net and typed the first two sentences in the Google and found that it was a counterfeit of a well written article. I don’t know what that student felt at that particular point but for me this teacher became a yardstick of analyzing all other teachers. Partnering is just opposite of teaching by lecturing. In Pedagogy 2.0 the teacher‘s role changes into a facilitator. Rather than lecturing teacher‘s role should be to provide
  26. 26. students with interesting thoughts and guide them in choosing best available resources from a junk of information uploaded in the internet. In partnering the responsibility is completely on the student to search, make suggestion, find answers, and create multimedia presentation, which are then scrutinized by the facilitator and the class and evaluated for its correctness, context, and quality. Thus the curriculum gets covered much faster with much interest as students themselves gather knowledge with their experiences in the real life. There exist levels of partnering to fit different types of students, different as they come from different situations and background How can a teacher come out of the regular direct teaching to the new Pedagogy? By asking the class if they think she/he is talking too much, or more than what they need. Asking them for suggestions on how reduce the amount of time telling.Partnering means, letting students to focus on the parts of the learning that they have agenuine forte, and letting teachers focus on the part of the learning process that they can dobest. Giving students agency to focus area of their interest means letting them do thefollowing: Finding and following their inner passion. Using whatever technology they are comfortable. Researching and finding information. Sharing their opinions and views through medium of their choice. Practicing with the help of games both Web Based Applications and Computer Based Applications
  27. 27. Creating presentations in text and multimedia.Letting teachers do what they can do best means giving teachers primary responsibility forthe following: Asking the right questions Guiding the students Linking the topics to particular contexts Ensuring quality A major shift in pedagogy—from telling to partnering—is not something that can be achieved with in an overnight. The transformation will take much longer time which can be years or month but the tipping point will be much faster if thousands of teachers will attest in the dissemination of Pedagogy 2.0. It is the call of the day because the 21 st century students need such a change to cope with the changing horizons of learning. The positive signal is that many digital immigrant teachers now collaborate with their digital native student to bring in such a change in their classrooms. This has made those teachers more close to their student‘s heart. “Classes should be two way interactive. PPTs if they are not more than text it is no worthier than a stale class. It will be as if PPTs taking the role of the lecturer. But if the teacher puts in his effort and brings a particular situation or context which I can relate with the subject then the class will become two way interactive.” The digital native students have an aversion to text and they have more affinity towards graphics and pictures. This might be the outcome of the exposure they had to the various digital media including Video games. They don‘t want their teachers to repeat that they
  28. 28. already know. They are looking for new information. The digital immigrant teachers are trying to bring interactivity to the classroom by preparing PPT presentations thus saying that they have adapted to the technology. But I reality, they are using more text than pictures in the PPTs which the students find is staler than a boring lecture. What the Digital Native student wants is to integrate the teachers experience into his teaching. They are also keen to give their point of view on a particular subject. If the teacher is able to teach in a way that the student can relate the teaching to a particular context or a situation in his real life his interest in the subject will be elevated. Teachers must keep in mind to insert more graphic in their PPTs rather than more text. It has been proven that graphics and multimedia based learning will have more attention span than the text based teaching among the learners. “I have observed for myself, when we were in the nursery the teachers were fairly experienced because they knew what I wanted exactly as a kid. But if you ask me about a teacher who is above the age of 30, in the current circumstances my answer will be no. They really don’t know what the students really want and they find hard to adapt to technology. They continue following the very old style of lecturing and they want us to take in whatever old stuff they present us. In fact what affects more is not their age but their inexperience in using technology. I am comfortable with a teacher who is sixty plus with a good understanding about technology and its positive use as a tool to enrich ones knowledge.”Digital Immigrant teachers don‘t know how to teach effectively using technology. They arefollowing the old method of talking and writing when the world has moved forward. They arenot able to adapt to the new ways of teaching that involves partnering with the students. Thesources of information and the credibility of it should be reviewed rather than the technology
  29. 29. used to gather it. Adopting a social model of teaching and learning rather than closedclassroom model, which place emphasis on the institution and instructor is the pioneeringstep towards achieving Pedagogy 2.0. A in vogue feature of Pedagogy 2.0 is the increasedsocialization of learning and teaching, greater emphasis is on teacher-student partnership inlearning, with teachers as co-learners and co-creators.4.0.1 Achieving Pedagogy 2.0ParticipationVirtual classrooms which have dwindled the confines of a physical classroom is no exceptionfor a imprisonment of students as it is an instructor centered learning set up. To further ahead,we will need to demolish these virtual walls so as to create social learning spaces, in whichlearners and … [teachers] … become associates in a community of practice, participating innetworks of interaction that transcend the old-fashioned constructs of institutions andorganisations.The social software tools make it easy for learners to engage productive discourse amongpeers, instructors, other subject-matter experts, and the community at large. These toolsopens up new possibilities of maintaining own collection of ideas, photos, and bookmarksonline. . These creations facilitates personal expression and publication which in turn addsto the social constructivist form of participation allowing expert reviews and comments thuscontributing to the knowledge economy, but it also adds a further dimension to participativelearning by increasing the level of socialization and collaboration with experts, community,and peer groups, and by fostering connections that are often global in reach.PersonalizationThe term personalization is not Greek term for the educators as it has been in and out of theirframework for past few years as there has been an exorbitant lament for ―student centriclearning‖ for past many years. Personalization nurtures the student‘s potential of decision
  30. 30. making. However, despite the efforts of many constructivist teachers, some are stillrecalcitrant in the prevailing and pre-packaged content and pre-designed syllabus, denyingstudent‘s autonomy in shaping their own learning trajectories.Text cannot perfect communication, as web-based multimedia production and distributiontools incorporating rich audio (podcasting, Skype), photo (Flickr) and video (vodcasting,YouTube, Stickam) capabilities are growing.According to researchers, pedagogy must do the following: Ensure that learners are capable of making informed educational decisions; Diversify and recognize different forms of skills and knowledge; Create diverse learning environments; Include learner-focused forms of feedback and assessment.The challenge for educators is to enable personalization by, knowledge building, andproviding learner options and choice along with supplying the necessary structure andscaffolding.Moving on from LMS‘s, the PLE concept is an alternate method of e-learning. Unlike LMS‘sthat take a course-centric view of learning, PLE‘s are learner-centric. The idea is to havelearners exercise greater control over their learning experience, rather than be constrained bycentralized, instructor- controlled learning.ProductivityStudents are ingenious in creating and generating ideas, concepts, and knowledge, inarguablythe crux of the ―new wave‖ in education is to equip learners as producers and not mereconsumers of knowledge. The value of textbooks are questioned for their ineptness to update
  31. 31. in frequent pace, thus increasing the reliance on up-to-date social learning tools by thelearners.Today‘s learners have distaste towards factual information as they prefer search engines andknowledge repositories like Wikipedia and Google to go beyond the periphery of a subject. Adisillusionment slowly sweeps across the teacher community that instructor suppliedknowledge has limitations and if it per-empts learners from discovery and research whichwill affect the knowledge creation process. There is an interest amongst some of them on howthe social software tools make the creation and sharing of knowledge possible with thelearner in the driving seat.Student-generated content may also include synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) discourse such as chat logs and discussion board postings,reflective writing in the form of blog-based diaries, summaries, and reviews, created bystudents working individually or in teams. Last, but not least, it may also include ―cameacross‖ content, including the results of students‘ own wide reading, gathered from websites,journals, magazines, and news articles that are brought to, and shared with others in, thelearning environment.4.0.2 Findings Teachers of digital immigrant class tend to imposture as tech savvy which affects their reputation among students. Digital immigrant teachers tend to question the authenticity of the information retrieved from digital repositories like the Wikipedia. The digital native students‘ attention span in the classes of digital native teachers who uses Pedagogy 2.0 is more when compared to that of digital immigrant teachers who follow the course-centric approach.
  32. 32. Digital native students can multitask, they can learn with the help of games, for them graphics and interactivity accounts more than words.It is impossible to rusticate technology from the life of digital natives‘ lives as it has evolvedinto an inevitable component of their day-to-day life. Chapter 5 5.0 ConclusionThe era of chalk and board has ended long back but teachers who adopt the new method ofpedagogy are very few. Students in our colleges and universities today carry tablets andlaptops instead of the old college notes. Reading, looking at screens with instant access tointernet has become common among student fraternity. The dissemination of technology inrapid scale among people has contributed to this radical change.Today‘s students from the kindergarten to college have already adapted to the technology eraby using ipods, laptops and mobile phones. They have a greater understanding of technologygained through experimentation. But a greater section of today‘s teachers are from the
  33. 33. previous generation. They find hard to cope with technology. This in turn affects thetechnology enabled teaching which new generation students clamor for. This forces to draw aline between the new generation teachers and the new generation students. As per definitionsby European technologist the people who were born before 1960s comes under the digitalimmigrant background where as people who are born after 1960s are digital native. But whenwe come to the Indian version of the same concept, the diffusion rate of the technologyshould be taken into account. The digital divide between the west and our country is suchwide that only people who were born afer 1980‘s come under the bracket of digital natives.Thus the majority of teachers in our educational system are from digital immigrantbackground or those who were born before 1980‘s. The digital natives students gather andprocess information in a much different way when compared to their parents andgrandparents. This has caused concern in people from both the generations.One way or the other today‘s students are all native speakers of technology; they arecomfortable with using mobile phones and computers. Their use of technology is beyond theperiphery. But the digital immigrants are satisfied with the peripheral use of technology. Thebest example is their use of Mobile phones. The digital natives use mobile phones not onlyfor making call but for wide range of other purposes including surfing internet but the digitalimmigrants are not interested in exploring the other possibilities of technology other thantheir basic use.The digital immigrant teachers tend to imposture as digital natives. To achieve this they usetext based PPTs and contents copied from web sites. The students perception about theteacher is affected by this as some teachers even forget to remove the hyperlinks from theppt.Students from the digital native background uses internet and technology enabled platformsfor gathering vast information. They make use of online games and other CBA to enrich
  34. 34. study.The digital immigrant teachers are incapable of accessing these information because oftheir inability to understand the possibilities of available technology. This has caused thestudents to look down upon their teachers. Their credibility as authentic source of informationis being questioned by the students. The roles of teachers are taken over by the social learningtools like the wiki and facebook. Students want their teachers to participate in the process oflearning not as a giver but as a co-learner and co-creator. They want to interact in the classand share their ideas with their friends through group discussions and other means. But thedigital immigrant teachers are not open for such a change in the system. Students are moreattached with the teachers from a digital native background; they are more tech savvy nadunderstand the new language of participation, presentation and productivity which form thebasic elements for Pedagogy 2.0.The digital immigrant teachers will face more problems with their students if they follow theold norms of teaching. The way to move ahead is to embrace the new pedagogy 2.0.Pedagogy 2.0 is not a new platform altogether but it is the integration of participation,presentation and productivity into the old pedagogy. The teachers who find trouble in usingtechnology should understand the possibilities of it and alter their thoughts rather thanpropagating false information that it is not authentic. They could either accept or reject theinflux of technology into their world, but eventually it is evident that technology will stay.Like all immigrants, these teachers needed to be en-cultured into the cultural practices of theInformation Age to allow multiculturalism and cultural pluralism for the flourishing of socialunity, which could finally lead to assimilation into the Knowledge Economy.The age of virtual classroom has also come to an end. Virtual Classrooms are considered asno substitute for a participatory classroom where teachers interact with the student by givingthe agency to the student to come up with interesting ideas. The new age students prefersocial learning spaces rather than virtual walls.
  35. 35. Teachers must encourage students to use the social learning tools for interacting with peersand experts from different areas because these tools enable the students to share their ideas tomore number of people thus building the scope for improvement The sharing of ideas throughsocial software tools will merge them to the social constructivist world thus becoming keycomponent of the knowledge economy.This kind of interaction will also give them global exposure as their works are reviewed bypeople from around the world who are experts in the subject. The teachers should accept thefact that students will search for more than what they are teaching. The role of the teachers isto suggest and correct the students when they start derailing form the track.The student centric approach of teaching helps students to nurture their forte in decisionmaking. Some teachers still believe in pre-packaged content and pre-designed syllabus,denying student‘s the agency to choose their own learning methods.In the technologically advanced era text alone cannot perfect communication; students makeuse of audio video and images to gather information. The pedagogy should ensure learnersare capable of making informed educational decisions; diversify and recognize differentforms of skills and knowledge; Create diverse learning environments; Include learner-focusedforms of feedback and assessment.Educators should enable personalization by building knowledge and providing learneroptions and choice along with supplying the necessary structure and scaffolding. LearningManagement System should be revamped so as to give the learner the focus rather thanteacher. Learning management systems are totally teacher centric and the rules are set by himbut this should be replaced by PLS where students gets upper hand.Students should be viewed as producers of knowledge; the role of the teacher is to equip themas producers of knowledge rather than consumers. Students believe that the Digital immigrantinstructor supplied knowledge has limitations and that it per-empts them from discovering
  36. 36. and researching which will add to the knowledge creation process. The social learning toolshelp the learners in the process of becoming the knowledge producers, this includes the blogsthey maintain, and the computer mediated communication such as virtual discussion roomsand chat logs. The vast reading of the student through internet will also add to his or herknowledge production.Web 2.0 and social software tools make possible user-controlled, peer-to-peer knowledgecreation, and network-based enquiry. The integration of technology for the creation ofknowledge and networking will open a new path in the teaching learning practice.Nevertheless, technology alone should not be considered as the sole driver of change inpedagogy. Though technology makes possible interaction and peer to peer discussionspossible, learning process cannot be totally based on this. Pedagogical frameworks, informedby learner-centered principles, and sensitive to the learning context, need to be considered.Furthermore, Web 2.0 is part of a group of societal factors that include changing studentexpectations and demographics, lifelong learning, and institutional pressures for improved,innovative, and cost-efficient modes of teaching. This implies that we must be alert to a rangeof factors that impact on pedagogical choice. There are already signs of optimism thatexisting Pedagogy 2.0 practices, by capitalizing on the three P‘s of personalization,participation, and productivity, will result in a learning landscape and a diverse range ofeducational experiences that are socially contextualized, engaging, and generative.Can teachers, whose traditional frame of reference is formality, understand how informallearning can take place through social networking and beyond the formal spaces ofclassrooms, libraries, and laboratories? Can we extend our classrooms to link with opencommunities that are sharing, revising, and creating new ideas? Can academia, with theirestablished legacy of transmissive pedagogy, rise to the challenge and affect the kind ofteaching revolution and changes that are both necessary and inevitable in the new age? The
  37. 37. challenge is to facilitate learning, be less prescriptive, and be open to new media, tools, andstrategies, while nurturing the skills of information evaluation as well as the blending,remixing, and recombination of ideas to reach creative solutions. This can be achieved byemploying the social software tools, resources, and opportunities that can leverage what ourstudents do naturally – socialize, network, and collaboration.5.0.1 Recommendations The era of chalk and board has ended long back so the teachers should understand the possibilities of adopting Pedagogy 2.0 in classrooms. Teachers should understand the possibilities of Social Learning tool and adopt this technique to enhance teaching. Students should be considered as not mere consumers of knowledge but producers of it thus encouraging the knowledge economy. The digital natives like to present their thoughts in the classroom.
  38. 38. ReferencesVygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research ineducation (2nd Ed.).New York: McGraw-HilPrensky, M. (2001a, September/October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Onthe Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.Prensky, M. (2001b, November/December). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,Part 2: Do they Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.Sue Bennett ,Karl Maton and Lisa Kervin(2008) The ‗digital natives‘ debate: Acritical review of the evidencePrensky,M.(2005a).Engagemeorenrageme. EDUCASEReview,40,5,September/October, 61–6Prensky,M.(2005b).Listentothenatives. EducationalLeadership, 63,4,8–13.Lee,L.(2005).YoungpeopleandtheInternet:fromtheorytopractice.NordicJournalofYouth Research, 13,4,315–326.Kolb,D.A.(1984).Experientiallearning:experienceasthesourceoflearninganddevelopment.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.The Three P‘s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization,Participation, and Productivity Catherine McLoughli and Mark W LeeThe Mayer Report: employment related competencies for post compulsoryeducation and training. Canberra, NBEET, 1992 Vygotsky, L 1962, Thought andlanguage, M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  39. 39. Vygotsky, LS 1978, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher PsychologicalProcesses, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Banner, JM & Cannon, HC 1997, The Elements of Teaching, Yale UniversityPress, England.Boheman, N 2003, ‗collective professional knowledge‘, Medical Education 2000;34, pp. 505-506.Bransford, JD., Brown, AL & Cocking, RR (Eds), 1999, How People Lean –Brain, Experience and School, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Brosnan, MJ 1998, Technophobia: the psychological impact of informationtechnology, Routledge, New York.Broudy, J 1977, The real spin on tennis: grasping the mind, body, and soul of thegame, ICS Books, Merrillville.Cooper PA Computer-Mediated Communication, The Infosphere and the VirtualLearning Community http://www.shsu.edu/~csc_pac/site%202000.doc viewed18/10/2004Cope, B Castle, S and Kalantzis, M 1991 Immigration ethnic and social cohesion,Australian Government Publishing Services, Australia.Dillion, P 2004 ―Trajectories and tensions in the Theory of Information andCommunication Technology in Education‖, in British Journal of educationalstudies, Vol. 52, No. 2, June 2004, pp 138-150.Gardner, H 1983, 1984 & 1993, Frames of Mind: The theory of multipleintelligences, Basic Books, New York. Gardner, H 2004, Changing Minds - TheArt and Science of Changing Our Own and Other Peoples Minds, HarvardBusiness School Press, Massachusetts.
  40. 40. Jarvis, P Holford, J & Griffin, C 1998, The Theory and Practice of Learning,Kogan Page, London.

×