Introduction to checet 2013 course


Published on

Emerging technologies to improve teaching and learning in Higher Education course 2013

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
  • Sounds interesting, I would be willing to do the course
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • New Media Consortium Horizon reports
  • Conceptions and characteristics of ETs Definition in flux Emerging Technologies or ETs, as we are referring to them in this course, is a contested concept which is understood in different, but often taken-for-granted ways in the higher education sector (Veletsianos, 2010). The New Media Consortium (NMC) regards ETs as those technologies that are ‘likely to have a large impact on teaching, learning, or creative inquiry on college and university campuses within the next five years’ (Johnson et al. 2010 p. 3).  However, in the 2012 Horizon Report, there is an acknowledgement that there is a need to educate academics on uses of ET, and that the focus should be on innovative pedagogies rather than the technologies themselves (Johnson et al. 2012). The 2013 Horizon Report referred ETs to ‘practices that are likely to enter mainstream use in their focus sectors within three adoption horizons over the next five years’ (Johnson et al. 2013 p. 4). Siemens and Tittenberger (2009) seem to equate ET with social software (see page 42 of their book, where Blogs, Skype, Wikis, Second Life, Facebook and Google Reader are described as ETs). They subscribe to the view that technologies are not neutral, but embody philosophies and ideologies in themselves, reflecting particular worldviews. They see technologies as having multiple affordances by which they mean the actual potential of specific technologies, such as the potential of social software to provide emergent learning paths through interaction with peers. Thus, ETs are difficult to define and rather than defining the concept, Veletsianos (2010) describes ETs in terms of their characteristics. He sees ETs as those technologies which cohere with the following five characteristics:ETs may or may not be new technologiesThey are technologies which are emerging, but not necessarily new in the sense that they may have been around for some time but are not in use in that particular context. For example, in some parts of the world, Twitter is an established technology in higher education, but it’s potential in South Africa has yet to be developed. Similarly, in Australia , 3D Virtual Learning Environments (3DVLEs) are an established practice in many higher education institutions (see Wood in Chapter 6 for examples), but they may be considered an ET in South Africa as they are only beginning to be used in educational practice in this context.ETs may be considered as evolving or in the state of ‘coming into being’ and can be seen as being in a continual state of flux and development. For example, Mixit is being used for teaching and learning the South African context and is in a constant state of improvement of its capabilities. ETs go through hype cycles (Gartner Inc, nd),  which involve a technology trigger, which happens because of access to a presentation or a launch or demonstration such as a workshop which may generate interest by academics to use this technology in teaching and learning. It is then followed by what is known as ‘the peak of inflated expectations’ where there is great enthusiasm which is probably unrealistic, although there are some successful innovative teaching and learning practices, but also many failures in applying the technology.Here people would be presenting their enthusiasm through papers at conferences, seminars and other academic fora. This is followed by the ‘trough of disillusionment’ which happens because the technology has not lived up to the expectations to enhance teaching and learning and the interest in using this to enhance teaching and learning subsides substantially. The ‘slope of enlightenment’ then follows, where those who are really interested in using the technology make a concerted effort to understand how it can be used to improve their pedagogical practice and finally the ‘plateau of productivity’ follows where more academics become convinced of the benefits of using this technology in their own contexts and institutions may decide to make general use of the technology. See Figure 1 below,which shows the Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies for 2011 . The hype cycle should alert us to remaining sceptical about immediate and lasting transformation of the use of ETs as what may be fashionable at one time may entirely fall from favour at another time or in another context and merely drift into non-use. Veletsianos (2010) notes that educators can become almost evangelical about certain technologies when they are initiated into their use, but the ways in which they use the new technologies may reinforce traditional teaching methods and their knowledge of the affordances. What is also evident from Gartner's hype cycle is that in 2013  most of these technologies are not in use in the South African  You use et al first time each of these reports are cited – I assume they should be in full first time cited – also later on you start citing them in full – need to cite in full first time mentioned and thereafter use et al Not a concept all readers will recognise – particularly in South Africa so have suggested referring back to my chapter which provides examples from ten Australian HEIs The term hype cycle comes from Garner Inc’s prop research methodology coined in 2010. It is a registered and copyright methodology so should be cited. I suggest also a sentence explaining first their model is a one line sentence and then elaborating as you have done with HEI examples. Reference needed – figure also needs a caption Not clear whether you mean your interpretation of the hype cycle applied to South African context or Gartner’s own research showing this in 2013ETs satisfy two ‘not yet’ criteriaET are not yet fully understood - they are just starting to be used so their impact on and the implications for teaching and learning is not entirely clear, either for individual educators or for institutions as a whole. ET are not yet fully researched or researched in a mature way -  some innovators may be starting to research ETs in their own practice, but the findings are at best preliminary. The fact that ETs are not properly researched means that evidence of their usefulness may not be there to convince academics or institutional leaders that they could potentially make a good contribution to pedagogical practice in higher education. 5. ET are potentially disruptive , but their potential is mostly unfulfilled. Many definitions of ETs which are found on the web refer to their potential to disrupt common practice. However, the lack of predictability of ETs means that understanding of how they can be profitably used to enhance teaching and learning can only ascertained after some time and this may impede their dissemination (Williams, Karousou and Mackness 2011). An example of this is the potential of Open Educational Resources to change the way publication and copyright is used, however, the potential of this has yet to be developed in higher education research (Veletsianos 2010).  Velestianos (2010, p. 17) sees ETs as transcending academic disciplines and describes ETs as ‘tools, technologies, innovations, and advancements utilized in diverse educational settings to serve varied education-related purposes’. We tend to favour this definition above others, as it emphasises the context-specific nature of ETs, which we regard as particularly important for our discussion on interdisciplinary Southern perspectives and experiences. It is probable that ETs in these contexts are entirely different from those which are currently in vogue in other disciplines or in Northern contexts, for example. The definition is also broad enough to incorporate a number of different ways in which tools can be used to improve teaching and learning. Furthermore, it does not confine technologies to tools, but incorporates theories and approaches to teaching and learning in higher education, viewing the concept ‘technology’ in its broadest sense as a craft or art. hus Amory’s broad notion of mediation, as he has elucidated it in Chapter 5 of this collection, as encompassing both material tools and cognitive signs, is consistent with this broader view of ETs.  Needs reference You might want to elaborate on what that means. I used it a report and meant it in a positive way, but reviewers assumed disruptive was a bad thing (ie in ET field disruptive tends to be regarded positively, but in other areas it is taken literally as causing problems rather than unsettling and destabilising ‘tired’ and outmoded approaches. Would be worth a more recent reference because OERs have evolved enormously since 2010 – for example MIT now offers some OERs which have credit bearing value.
  • he latest hype cycle is below, and here are the descriptions of the major stages of it.1. Technology TriggerA breakthrough, public demonstration, product launch or other event generates significant press and industry interest.2. Peak of Inflated ExpectationsDuring this phase of overenthusiasm and unrealistic projections, a flurry of well-publicized activity by technology leaders results in some successes, but more failures, as the technology is pushed to its limits. The only enterprises making money are conference organizers and magazine publishers.3. Trough of DisillusionmentBecause the technology does not live up to its overinflated expectations, it rapidly becomes unfashionable. Media interest wanes, except for a few cautionary tales.4. Slope of EnlightenmentFocused experimentation and solid hard work by an increasingly diverse range of organizations lead to a true understanding of the technology’s applicability, risks and benefits. Commercial off-the-shelf methodologies and tools ease the development process.5. Plateau of ProductivityThe real-world benefits of the technology are demonstrated and accepted. Tools and methodologies are increasingly stable as they enter their second and third generations. Growing numbers of organizations feel comfortable with the reduced level of risk; the rapid growth phase of adoption begins. Approximately 20% of the technology’s target audience has adopted or is adopting the technology as it enters this phase.
  • Source:  Innovators- The adoption process begins with a tiny number ofvisionary, imaginative innovators2.   Early adopters: Once the benefits start to become apparent, earlyadopters leap in. They love getting an advantage over their peers and they have time and money to invest3.   Early majority: They are followers who are influenced by mainstream fashions and wary of fads. They are looking for simple, proven, better ways of doing what they already do. 4.   Late majority: They are conservative people who hate riskand are uncomfortable your new idea.5.   Laggards: They hold out to the bitter end. They arepeople who see a high risk in adopting a particular product orbehavior
  • Ernest Boyer and his colleagues at the Carnegie Foundation in the USA in 1990 developed the notion of SoTL in an attempt to transcend the research and teaching divide by redefining the nature of academic practice as ‘scholarly work’ (Brew, 2006:1).Evidence-based critical reflection on practice aimed at improving practice (Prosser, 2008:1)Transform curriculum development and pedagogy to impact on thought and practiceProbes relationship between teaching and learningTransmission of knowledge no longer valid – how students construct knowledge in an authentic context requires both pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge on the part of lecturers. How students learn is important. It is in the doing of the discipline that content becomes pedagogy and vice versa.Dialogic discourse – two way communication where participants support their own positions with justification and listen to others’ positions with the goal of mutual understanding (Innes, 2007:1)The teacher-scholar is both committed to scholarship in the disciplinary field and to successful student learning through teaching and effective institutional practices
  • Introduction to checet 2013 course

    1. 1. Introduction to CHECET 2013 course Vivienne Bozalek University of the Western Cape
    2. 2. Welcome to the 2013 CHEC course on Emerging Technologies to improve Teaching and Learning• in Higher Education!
    3. 3. But what are Emerging Technologies (ETs)? DAVID POGUE, The New York Times, February 22, 2012.
    4. 4. Johnson & Adams (2011:1)
    5. 5. Characteristics of ET1. May or may not be new technologies2. Evolving organism, that exist in the state of coming into being3. Go through hype cycles4. They are not yet fully understood5. They are not yet fully researched6. They are potentially disruptive, but that potential is mostly unfulfilled Veletsianos, 2010:13-17
    6. 6. Hype Cycle for Education 2012
    7. 7. What are you?Rogers (1995) Diffusion of innovations theory where he classified individuals
    8. 8. Six week course• One full-day face-to-face session (8 hours):10 April 2013• Two half-day face-to-face sessions (5 hours): 24 April & 22 May 2013• Three online sessions of at least 60 minutes each (17 April, 8 & 15 May 2013)• Self study (20 hours)
    9. 9. What do you have to do?• Individual and collaborative experiential exercises both f2f & in a social media space• Access and read relevant literature in the field• Exploring your own context and student needs• Formatively evaluating what you have decided to do• Design and develop a case study of an educational challenge using TEL• Present this to the course participants and facilitators• Reflect on your learning experience
    10. 10. Ways of comunication• Face to face – CPUT• Blog• Facebook group 1176/?fref=ts• Wiki-site for case study repository:• Twitter hashtag for the course: #checet• Adobe Connect for web conferencing
    11. 11. Assessment tasksTask Date MarksReflection 1 17 April 2013 10Reflection 2 24 April 2013 10Reflection 3 8 May 2013 10Reflection 4 15 May 2013 10General course participation 22 May 2013 10Final task Case Study and presentation 22 May 2013 50
    12. 12. Case StudyCase Study TitleInstitution nameAuthor of case studyBackgroundIntended outcomesThe challengeEstablished practiceAffordances of ETsDescription of interventionKey points for effectivepracticeConclusions andrecommendationsAdditional information
    13. 13. CertificatesTypes of certificates• “Merit” for excellent work,• “Completion” for good work (attendance at course sessions plus submission of an assignment) and• “Participation” for attendance but no assignment or a really poor assignment.• Please consult the Rubrics on pages 14 and 15 of your course outlines to review the performance expected.
    14. 14. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Transcending teaching/research divide
    15. 15. Roger and Karin Moni presentation at UWC
    16. 16. We would like to research this course and would invite you to as well• Learn about the needs of higher educators• Improve our practice in facilitating courses with higher educators• Probe relationship between teaching and learning• Consider how educational challenges can be addressed by higher educators through using ETs• Transform curriculum and pedagogy• Engage in critical reflection on our practice• Share and disseminate with larger audience
    17. 17. Scholarship• ICEL 2013 presentation and conference proceedingsEmpowering educators to teach using emergingtechnologies in higher education – a case of facilitating acourse across institutional boundariesDick Ng’ambi1, Vivienne Bozalek2, Daniela Gachago3• HELTASA 2012 – Course participants presentations on their interventions• HELTASA 2013?• Case Studies?
    18. 18. Readings for the courseDabbagh, N & Bannan-Ritland, B (2005) Online learning: Concepts, strategies andapplication. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Companion website:
    19. 19. Readings for the courseBower, M (2008) Affordance Analysis – matchinglearning tasks with learning technologies,Education Media International, 45(1), 3–15.
    20. 20. Readings for the courseAnderson, T & Elloumi, F (Eds) (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning.Athabasca University,(online book). Available:
    21. 21. Readings for the course Mehlenbacher, B 2010. Instruction and Technology: Designs for everyday learning. MIT
    22. 22. Readings for CourseSiemens, G & Tittenberger, P (2009). Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning.Available
    23. 23. Readings for the courseVeletsianos, G. (ed.) (2010). Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, (onlinebook). Edmonton: AU Press. Available:
    24. 24. Readings for the courseWeller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How Technology is Transforming ScholarlyPractice. Bloomsbury Academic. Available:
    25. 25. Recommended readingBeetham, H & Sharpe, R (Eds) (2011) Rethinking pedagogy for adigital age: designing and delivering e-learning. London; New York:Routledge.
    26. 26. Recommended readingsHarris, J, Mishra, P & Koehler, M (2009) Teachers’Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge andLearning Activity Types: Curriculum-basedTechnology Integration Reframed. Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education, 41(4), p393-416.
    27. 27. ReferencesJohnson, L. and S. Adams. 2011. Technology Outlook for UK TertiaryEducation 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis.Austin, Texas: The New Media ConsortiumGartner Inc, (nd). Research Methodologies: Hype Cycles. (accessed 6 April 2013).Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innvation. 4th ed. New York: Free.Rust, B., J-M. Lowendahl, R. Bonig and M. Harris. 2010. GartnerReport, 17 NovSharpe, R., Beetham, H., & de Freitas, S. (Eds.). (2010). Rethinkinglearning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their ownexperiences. London: Routledge.Veletsianos, G. 2010. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education.Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press.