Embracing Ako in an E-learning Context

Embracing Ako: When teachers facilitate dialogue between learners, Web 2.0 tools can be a catalyst for building a collaborative and culturally responsive learning community

Mary-Angela Tombs 2012

Introduction

Within New Zealand’s self-managing school context, many educators face significant pressure from the community to integrate ever-changing technology across the curriculum, but at what cost to learning? Effective educators integrate technology in ways that will benefit students in terms of academic and social outcomes. Moreover, they facilitate learning in a framework that is culturally responsive. Therefore, the 21^st century teacher faces a challenge to make effective use of technology to build a learning environment that is responsive to learner abilities, needs and cultural diversity, rather than merely incorporating technology for technology’s sake.

This position paper explores effective pedagogy within the context of 21^st Century New Zealand classrooms. Learning theory and current literature related to the themes: cultural responsive classroom management, constructivist and objectivist strategies, collaboration through Ako, and constructive dialogue is presented. An application of each theme to an e-learning context is suggested to demonstrate the position that technology can support learning in terms of social and academic outcomes, through the careful selection and use of Web 2.0 tools. However, it is argued that careful selection and application of such tools is not enough to sustain responsive learning environments, and that the teacher’s role within this context is integral to its success.

Linking Learning Theory with Practice

In order to explore how a teacher in a 21^st century classroom can sustain a culturally responsive learning environment within which Web 2.0 tools are utilised to support positive social and academic outcomes, it is useful to consider learning theory underpinning current educational thinking about classroom management, and effective teaching and learning practices.

Culturally Responsive Classroom Management

In relation to classroom management, psychodynamic theorists focus on the behaviour of individual learners. They suggest that undesirable behaviour can result from an inner turmoil going on within the individual. If this turmoil is left un-checked, any desirable behaviours are impossible (Brigham & Brigham, 2005). The implication of this theory within a classroom is that being in tune with where individual students ‘are at’, is necessary. The teacher must be flexible and responsive to the affective or emotional needs, as well as the academic needs of students in order to maintain behaviour conducive to learning.

However, when applying e-learning (where all manner of electronic devices are used to support the learning programme) to a classroom setting, ‘behaviour that is conducive to learning’ could be interpreted to mean many things, according to a teacher’s own biases. Students working quietly, independently, and in a focused manner on their assigned learning task using their own technological device, could be interpreted as displaying ‘behaviour that is conducive to learning, as is illustrated within a research investigation by Larkin (2011).

Larkin’s (2011) research highlights some interesting and relevant issues for teachers who are under pressure to apply the use of technological devices into their learning programme. Larkin states that there have been positive outcomes in many studies when one laptop is provided for each learner in a classroom, in terms of classroom management, academic outcomes and response to individual needs.

In consideration of such research, it would seem that providing for 1:1 laptop use responds to psychodynamic theory in terms of allowing for meeting the needs of individuals. However, when investigating the claims made by other researchers, Larkin (2011) found that while students’ behaviour improved when they were assigned their own technological device (in this case a netbook), their learning tasks tended to be limited. In order to manage and fully utilise 1:1 netbook availability, for the most part whole classes of students were given access to the same limited selection of websites so that they could all complete set tasks as assigned by their teacher.

In this case, it is questionable whether e-learning was responsive to the social needs of the students and it certainly was not learner-focussed. The need to use the technology available influenced teacher choice, therefore the technology drove the learning, rather than the learning driving the technology.

In earlier research by Kajder (2007) it is presented that there is a tendency by some teachers to merely apply technological tools to traditional forms of teaching. When e-learning is limited to replacing textbooks with the internet, and pen and paper with word processors, rather than allowing for a flexible, constructivist approach that allows learners to be innovative, educators are cheating their students of valuable and relevant learning. Kajder presents one case where a student considered his most meaningful learning to happen in his own time. At this time he made choices about which technological tools to use and how he would use them. From this student’s perspective, school was merely a time-filler and not about learning.

This example presents a challenge to many teachers to consider whether their approach to applying technology to the classroom is flexible enough to respond to individual needs, or whether technology is driving learning rather than learning driving technology.

Flexibility of approach is also necessary when applying theory proposed by Dreikurs and Pearl (1972), and Balson (1993), According to their associated theoretical positions, belonging is the fundamental driving force for any behaviour. The need to feel part of a group has a significant impact on a student, resulting in them exhibiting a range of behaviours, both positive and negative, in order to feel that they are accepted.

When making decisions about planning for e-learning, an effective teacher considers how technologies will help all learners to feel accepted as an integral part of their learning community. The practice of Ako (as elaborated later in this paper) allows for everyone to have something valuable to share, whether it be expertise in computing, understanding about a topic, or an affective quality such as the ability to consider all sides to an argument within a social setting.

There are many challenges to teacher practice in an e-learning context in relation to the theoretical positions of Dreikurs and Pearl (1972), and Balson (1993).  A reflective teacher considers how well the e-learning environment responds to those students who do not demonstrate academic expertise by questioning themselves. Will the less academically able students play the role of the observer while more academically capable students contribute knowledge because of a perception that the contributions of less able students to knowledge-building may be limited? Will they be assigned more mundane drill and practice types of computer-assisted learning activities? How can the affective skills of students who are not as academically capable but compassionate, patient and skilled at listening be given a sense that their presence in a collaborative e-learning scenario is just as important as students who comes up with all the ideas? Such questions must be considered if teachers are to be effective in developing social connections that benefit learning.

Sociocultural Theory, as posed by Vygotsky (1978) and later by Bruner (1996) proposes that higher order functions grow within a social interface. This theory asserts that the social connection an individual has with those around them, impacts on the development of that individual and their ability to learn. Renowned Māori scholar Makareti (in Penniman, 1986) provides a link between this theory and a Māori world view in that she describes the social connections of an individual as being part of a whānau, and a whānau being part of a hapū, and an iwi. In the context of a classroom, according to sociocultural theory, an effective teacher considers the child to be irrevocably attached to their community in order to promote learning. 

Allowing individuals to forge strong connections with their community strengthens the learning community. In this context, the teacher promotes the concept of the classroom as a culturally responsive community of mutually supportive learners. A culturally responsive learning environment that considers and respects dignity, ethnicity, social understandings, and learners’ personal experiences exemplifies positive relationships between individuals that support learning.

Applying e-learning in a way that enhances the relationship between community members also strengthens cultural responsiveness. But when engaging students 1:1 with electronic devices and solely building online communities there is a risk that while focusing on online relationships that are physically removed from the learner, the social connections present physically within the classroom and whānau may be undermined.

The New Zealand Curriculum also promotes the importance of building strong relationships within a social context by stating, “Opportunities to develop the competencies occur in social contexts. People adopt and adapt practices that they see used and valued by those closest to them, and they make these practices part of their own identity and expertise” (MOE, 2007, p. 12). Strong relationships can be nurtured when learners collaborate with one another to learn together. Therefore an effective teacher applies e-learning in a way that enhances whakawhanaungatanga (the building of relationships). An effective teacher considers how e-learning can provide for social interaction between learners, and whether opportunities are made to engage the whole community in learning through the use of e-learning strategies. There is much scope here for research into how this can be achieved.

Constructivist and Objectivist Strategies

Psychodynamic and Sociocultural learning theories provide the background to constructivist technology-based integration strategies (Roblyer, 2006). In a constructivist approach, learning is co-constructed through collaboration.  Real contexts provide real problems that learners work together to solve.

An objectivist approach, in contrast, relies on a directed approach to learning. In an e-learning context, a teacher who decides that her class must learn to make a power point presentation to present answers to questions about animals illustrates objectivism. In this case, the teacher takes control of the learning because she wants the students to learn a particular skill.

While both objectivist and constructivist approaches have a place when applied to e-learning contexts, if the focus of the learning is in building a community that supports one another and builds knowledge together, constructivism is more applicable. Constructivism sits more comfortably within a culturally responsive context, as it is socially-based, flexible and learner-driven. Constructivism builds a community that can collaborate to achieve a common aim or understanding.

Collaboration through Ako

It is clear that when people collaborate, they benefit from the skills, knowledge and dispositions of those they work and learn alongside. According to Laal and Ghodsi (2012), collaborative learning also strengthens attachment and leads to higher levels of social competence and greater self-esteem. If, through collaboration, students are to develop key competencies that help them to grow into a community of learners that is mutually supportive, a caring and responsive environment must be nurtured.

A mutually supportive community can be facilitated by the practice of Ako (Bishop & Berryman, 2009). Ako is demonstrated within a learning context when there is a reciprocal understanding between community members: learner can become teacher, and teacher can become learner. When the concept of Ako is applied to constructivism, learners not only work together to solve problems, but they do so to benefit their community by supporting one another. Ako adds a caring dimension to constructivism. The practice of Ako does not undermine the role of the classroom teacher. Collaboration through Ako allows for the learning load to be shared as everyone within the learning community takes responsibility for ensuring that all needs are responded to.

Constructive Dialogue

Collaboration that focuses on facilitating development of learning-centred dialogue between students, helps students to co-construct knowledge (Lee, McLoughlin & Chan, 2008). Students develop the language needed to understand complex concepts by sharing and justifying their ideas and listening to those of others. Conversations about learning where students explain their methods, justify their points of view and challenge others’ ideas respectfully, significantly increase the likelihood of enhanced learning (Saleh, Lazonder & De Jong, 2004; Hunter, 2010; Walshaw & Anthony, n.d.).

Learners can engage in constructive dialogue in a face-to-face context as well as online, but in either context they need the guidance of a teacher to monitor and support such dialogue if it is to benefit the group as a collaborative learning community that expresses Ako.

Constructive dialogue facilitated within an online context involves students communicating and collaborating with other people online, either synchronously or asynchronously (Lin & Bolstad, 2010; Rosen & Nelson, 2008) via social web-based tools, or ‘Web 2.0’ tools (Wheeler, 2009). The integration of carefully chosen Web 2.0 tools (websites that allow people to communicate and contribute online) can help to teach the skills necessary for constructive dialogue in a collaborative environment where Ako is expressed. Web 2.0 tools such as podcasts, surveys, graphic organisers, discussion forums and posting boards are available online, often for free, and allow for a good deal of creativity and potential for practice in collaborative problem-solving, which enhances learning (Kajder, 2007; Rosen & Nelson, 2008; Lee, McLoughlin & Chan, 2008; Lieberman, Bates & So, 2009).

For online collaboration to be valuable to the learner, participants must actively engage in and contribute to the discussion with one another. It is not sufficient for students to be bystanders, although reticence is typical of elementary students when involved in online forums (Chiu, Yang, Liang & Chen, 2010).

Strijbos and Weinberger (2010) describe two structures for online discussion. When participants manage their own discussion without an appointed leader, this is described as ‘emergent’. The discussion in this case is free to move in any direction, depending on the input from its contributors. This constructivist approach to discussion can lead to innovation and allow for previously unidentified leaders to emerge.  When a learning discussion is ‘scripted’, the teacher provides prompts or appoints roles within the discussion. While scripted discussion has the potential to limit innovation, this objectivist approach may encourage less-confident participants to contribute because they are given a structure to follow to guide questioning and responses.

In this way a scripted approach may support learners in a culturally diverse setting, where some students are reluctant to share and justify their views, as well as questioning the views of others, for fear of being seen to be insensitive or disrespectful. According to one Pasifika Education Adviser, reticence in discussion is especially relevant for children from Pacific nations, who are taught not to question learning or be involved in debate in class as this could be seen as highlighting teacher inadequacies (T. Taleni, personal communication, March 26, 2012). By providing prompts in an online e-learning discussion context, a teacher can support collaboration that is culturally respectful, and be aware of where each student is ‘at’ as suggested by psychodynamic theorists.

E-learning related discussion can also happen in the face-to-face context of the classroom, when pairs or small groups of students work together on shared e-learning projects (Chiu, Yang, Liang & Chen, 2010; Lee, McLoughlin & Chan, 2008; Mercer, Fernandez, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2003; Orme & Monroe, 2005; Snider & Foster, 2000). One example of a Web 2.0 tool that is useful for a shared e-learning project is an online survey tool. There are many user-friendly versions of free survey tools available online. Students can work together to construct surveys where they gather feedback to support their inquiry into a particular topic. This type of collaboration also relies teacher preparation and active involvement in the process for it to be successful and equitable. There is the potential for more dominant students to take over the process. When teachers explicitly teach group skills, and establish clear ground rules from the beginning of a project, students are far more likely to be caring and responsive to one another’s needs in this context (Mercer, Fernandez, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2003).

Whether discussion is online or face-to-face, Walshaw & Anthony (n.d.) and Alton-Lee (2003) argue that is not enough for students to be left to have a conversation about learning without the explicit guidance and support of their ever-watchful teacher. Without support, it is possible that while students may offer and record their own ideas, they may not engage in negotiation or justification of choices as is necessary for learning. Students need to be supported to learn the language and the skills associated with discourse, so that they can be full participants in a meaningful discussion. This view is corroborated by that held by Mercer, Fernandez, Dawes, Wegerif and Sams (2003). Their research highlighted the need for children to be taught how to participate in discussion effectively in order to collaborate.

While schools may fundraise intensively to purchase the latest electronic devices  and then face pressure from their community to be seen using these devices, responsive educators consider effective pedagogy when applying e-learning to a collaborative learning programme. There has been much support in recent years for the integration of 1:1 devices, such as mobile phones and ipods, into learning (Larkin, 2011). However, Larkin challenges popular thought about the benefits of allowing one device for each learner. His research found that when more devices are available within a classroom setting, students are less inclined to engage in valuable constructive dialogue with one another. In contrast, classrooms where fewer devices are available demonstrate higher levels of collaboration between students, resulting in the co-construction of knowledge.

Another consideration when applying sound pedagogy to an e-learning context is that related to teaching learners how to use e-learning tools. In many cases, students are capable of picking up new technological knowledge more quickly than teachers allow them to (Kajder, 2007). Likewise some students are faster to learn than others - as with any learning context.

Ako can be facilitated through reciprocal arrangements where learners engage in learning dialogue to support one another and problem-solve the use of Web 2.0 tools. Within this context, while the tool itself may not be the focus of the teacher’s planned learning experience, the need to negotiate the tool provides a context for enhancing collaboration and building a learning community.

Conclusion

This paper has presented a position that when teachers facilitate constructive dialogue between learners, e-learning in the form of Web 2.0 tools can be a catalyst for building a culturally responsive learning community that collaborates to learn. Theoretical background has been detailed to underpin the need to facilitate constructive learning dialogue, with reference to a balance between constructivist and objectivist teaching strategies that build students’ confidence and support their ability to contribute.

A connection between theory and practice has been made within the context of an e-learning environment that respects the cultural backgrounds of learners. Examples of practice have been provided to illustrate this connection in order to demonstrate ways that Ako can be embraced within an e-learning environment.

A strong emphasis has been placed on the choices that teachers need to make when applying e-learning strategies to their teaching because when Ako is nurtured within an e-learning context, and managed strategically and responsively by the teacher, collaboration leads to valuable communication within a learner-centred environment that is culturally responsive.

References

Balson, M. (1993). Understanding classroom behaviour (3^rd ed.). Victoria: ACER.

Bishop, R. & Berryman, M. (2009). The Te kotahitanga effective teaching profile. Set, 2, 27-33.

Brigham, F., & Brigham, M. (2005). An introduction to understanding behavior. Virginia, VA: University of Virginia.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. London: Harvard University Press.

Chiu, C., Yang, T., Liang, T. & Chen, H. (2010). Elementary students' particpation style in synchronous online communication and collaboration. Behaviour & Information technology, 29(6), 571-586.

Dreikers, R., & Pearl, C. (1972). Discipline without tears. New York: Hawthorn Books.

Hunter, R. (2010). Changing roles and identities in the construction of a community of mathematical inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 397-409.

Kajder, S. B. (2007). Unleashing potential with emerging technologies. In K. Beers, R. E. Probst & L. Rief (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy: Turning Promise into          Practice (pp. 213-229). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 31, 486-490.

Larkin, K. (2011). You us e! I us e! We us e! Questioning the orthodoxy of 1:1 computing in primary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(2), 101–120.

Lee, M., McLoughlin, C. & Chan, A. (2008). Talk the talk: learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 501-521.

Lieberman, D., Bates, C., & So, J. (2009). Young children's learning with digital media. Computers in the Schools, 26, 271- 283.

Lin, M., & Bolstad, R. (2010). Virtual classrooms: lessons for teaching and learning in the 21st century. Set, 1, 2-9.

Mercer, N., Fernandez, M., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2003). Talk about texts at the computer: using ICT to develop children's oral and literate abilities. Reading Literacy and Language, July, 81-89.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Author.

Orme, M., & Monroe, E. (2005). The nature of discourse as students collaborate on a Mathematics WebQuest. Computers in the Schools, 22 (1/2), 135-146.

Penniman, T. (Ed.). (1986). Makereti: The old time Māori. Auckland: New Women’s Press.

Roblyer, M. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Rosen, D., & Nelson, C. (2008). Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education. Computers in Schools, 25(3-4), 211- 225.

Saleh, M, Lazonder, A, & De Jong, T. (2004). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105-119.

Snider, S., & Foster, J. (2000). Stepping stones for linking, learning, and moving toward electronic literacy: Integrating emerging technology in an author study project. Computers in the Schools, 16(2), 91.

Strijbos, J-W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26, 491-494.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wheeler, S. (2009). Learning space mashups: Combining Web 2.0 tools to create collaborative and reflective learning spaces. Future Internet, 1, 3-13.