Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) – some considerations
“At the core of education, training and learning lays the education philosophy of the institution, which is then embedded within the curriculum – embedded within the design of the curriculum. Once the curriculum is designed, then the teaching program can be developed, and then the individual lesson plans can be drafted. Designing the curriculum is the starting point of any effective student learning experience. The program should then effectively enable the teacher to facilitate positive and effective learning experiences”(Page 2008).
This blog is a continuation of the International Education blog. Within that essay I attempted to present two issues. Firstly, that the current Australian tertiary education system, being a product of a euro-western, monoculturalist ideal provides a number of barriers to the effective teaching of a multicultural society that today exists in Australia. This multicultural society includes Non-Native English speakers (NNEs). Ineffective teaching, as suggested can impact the greater society in its’ realisation of macro goals. Given this, we as a society need to re-evaluate the outcomes that we desire, and to make a conscious decision as to whether the current social ideal (euro-western educational system) is to continue. The question I posed was: should we not be attempting to maximise the contribution of all members of society. It is I believe our leader’s responsibility to ensure that education for responsible citizenship – allowing all to assume their rightful, productive position within our community – so that everybody has an important place in society. The second issue that I chose to broach was how we as educational leaders could contribute once we were in a position to develop an educational system that meets the needs of contemporary Australia.
Referencing my tertiary educational institutional experience, I proposed a heuristic educational approach to be adopted. In this approach, the teacher assumes more of a facilitative role, leading the learners to their own self-development, guiding them to greater understanding as to who they are as social members and what they need to learn to become more able to contribute in the contemporary global environment.
Technology encouraged globalisation
As raised in my first blog in this series, technological development has been highlighted as having a direct impact on globalisation, particularly the speed with which globalisation is occurring. Globalisation, defined as “a set of conditions in which an increasing fraction of value and wealth is produced and distributed worldwide through a system of interlinking private networks”(OECD in Kelly:1998:1), and its “intensification over recent years owes much to the emergence of means of instantaneous global communication and mass transportation”(Giddens in Taylor et al:1997:55). Since the 1970’s, a world economy has become a valid economic concept (Hobsbawm in Taylor et al:1997:55). However, there are several concerns with such a phenomenon:
Firstly; the spread of the western paradigm through its’ designers and majority of users. This influences the recipient or user of the technology, irrespective of their nationality, with very little regard for the cultural needs of this recipient/learner/user (Page 1998). The western paradigm has been suggested by certain quarters as being behind all that is great in the world at present. Not the least is consumerism. In the 1998 report of the United Nation’s Development Program, the Deputy Director stated “that twenty six per cent of the world’s people account for eighty six per cent of spending for personal consumption. The wealthiest twenty per cent consume forty five per cent of meat and fish, use fifty eight per cent of total energy, own seventy four per cent of all telephone lines and eighty per cent of the world’s vehicles”( Kelly:1998:7). It is this paradigm that is being received around the world to billions of people, irrespective of their socio-economic, educational, cultural or political position. Termed the global monoculture, Norberg-Hodge (1996, 36) highlights the eagerness that so many non –Americanised cultures embrace the symbols of the western perspective – “sunglasses, walkmans, and blue jeans –not because they find those jeans more attractive or comfortable but because they are symbols of modern life”. Yet it is this modern life that comes at such a cost, according to Norberg-Hodge. The most extreme of these is “feeling ashamed of their own (traditional) culture”. Apparently so overpowering is the imagery of the west, that “millions of young people believe contemporary Western culture to be far superior to their own”, irrespective of the harsh realities such as social, psychological, environmental and economic dimensions. Accepted forms of western lifestyle promotion have been movies, pop songs, media mediums and tourism. With the growth of technology, I would suggest that the newest most influential vehicle for the transfer of these symbols is the internet.
Secondly: the degree of technological access equity. That is, the degree of exclusivity that technology brings, given that technology is only available to a specific group of global citizens – those of industrialised economically advanced nations. These nations are also the nations that have embraced the information age. “Technological access allows its’ recipients, its’ learners and its users to become part of the information –based world economy, interacting with the latest information” (Page 1998). The industrialised economically advanced nations are also the nations that have embraced the information age. Therefore, providing that one doesn’t come from a low socio- economic area of these nations, one is said to have reasonable access potential (OECD in Kelly:1998:2). In contrast, third world nation citizens are said to not have reasonable access potential. Whilst this lack of access may limit the speed and breadth of the spread of the western paradigm, inequitable distribution of knowledge, is likely to “lead to further disparity across socio-economic, cultural or political spheres” (Page 1998).
Thirdly, the inclusion of technology in learning programs may exclude or negatively impact certain types of learners: learners who have been educated in a specific location, manner or era – that is, in a non–computer or non-self discovery style of learning environment; or they themselves as learners prefer other modalities to a non- discovery style of learning, may not respond well in such a technology embracing institution.
A Culturally-Biased Curriculum?
It is interesting to note that QRITC management responded to staff and student complaints regarding the issues outlined with the curriculum for the International learners by reciting the following benefits:
(A) the fee-paying learners will benefit from the formalised training , offering them a career path training in what has been considered up until that point a menial (unskilled) task. QRITC management believed these international training opportunities were not available to those learners in their home culture. In the case of the Japanese, there exists a very high barrier to entry for the locals aspiring to have a career in the racing industry. By having other training opportunities outside of Japan has brought into question the real needs of the industry as a whole and provided a platform for discussion of more equitable training needs arrangements. Ritchie puts forward that cross border organising can allow scrutiny and debate over oppressive and elitist practices within particular home cultures (Ritchie:1996:494-500). It would appear that the case in hand has shown that this can be a real outcome.; and,
(B) such a training opportunity allows the development of their international industry. QRITC management believed that the QRITC offered training opportunities to the Japanese racing industry, bringing it in line with current world standards (a) of skill and (b) of global reciprocal training etiquette (Kelly:1998:2). Apparently, it is considered that Japan, whilst benefiting enormously from other nation’s openness of offering input of technical expertise, is slow in reciprocating in the opening up of their market for foreign technical or experiential gain . It is thought by many within the Australian Racing Industry that through education influence over the Japanese to understand the western concept of sharing expertise. Again the cultural assumptions and biases that underpin these statements are very Euro-centric, and imperialistic.
The QRITC curriculum was designed from the paradigm where the client is assumed to meet the learning needs of a specific stereotype: English speaking, moderate level of literacy, both communicatively and technologically, and from a eurocentric cultural background. Obviously, a problem arises when the client being offered this type of course, does not satisfy one or any of these target audience characteristics. As already touched on, cultural relevance is of major concern when dealing with cross border training. Ladson-Billings notes that “for almost 15 years, anthropologists have looked at ways to develop a closer fit between a student’s home culture and the school. This work has had a variety of labels including culturally appropriate, culturally congruent, culturally responsive, and culturally compatible (Ladson-Billings:1995:159). QRITC’s management were open about their imperialistic motive, believing they knew what was both best for the clients and for their home industry.
Language-Biased Delivery?
A major delivery challenge at QRITC was with the international learners and meeting the client’s language, or lack there of, needs. The clients ranged from low to pre-intermediate proficiency levels of English. In the specific context of QRITC’s nationally accredited program, 6 weeks of English instruction is presented up front. This can only be seen as a token gesture as a much longer time is required for achieving real results. For NNS’s, at that level , 6 weeks is little more than a token effort. It was assumed that the students would acquire, ’on the run’ those skills that they need to achieve. From this I draw two distinctions: (1) from a cultural perspective, little regard was provided to the learners’ needs (ie: their lack of having English as a first language); and (2) little understanding of the linguistic process and lack of consideration was given for how the learners were intending to achieve the competencies.
With regard to the first point, I believe that this situation arose due to the euro-centric paradigm of the curriculum designers. I met with and discussed in detail with both the curriculum designers and their line managers who were influential in having the program approved and implemented. I found them to be extremely euro-centric in their views. In regards to the second point: both the curriculum designers and line managers had limited knowledge about the second language acquisition process of our learners, in general and for the specific vocational context. Cope and Kalantzis suggest that as part of remaining competitive in the current global economy, products need to be redesigned to (re)align them to the particular customer. In their paper on productive diversity, they suggest that this kind of flexibility is necessary in the current times; no matter the product or service that is being offered. Presenting a case example, the products included an example of an educational institution in Sydney, an institution characterised with an an ethnically diverse mix of learners. Cope and Kalantzis (1997, 137) describe what the institution did to attempt to keep and maintain its’ flexibility and competitive advantage. “The academic staff … at UTS were concerned that the diversity of the student body presented a range of teaching and learning difficulties. Identifying these as issues that needed to be addressed academically has been a critical part of transforming the way the university deals with diversity” (Cope and Kalantzis:1997:137). Nunan found in a recent study of an educational system, institutions were expected to design, implement and evaluate their own curriculum: firstly, identifying the learners’ needs; secondly, selecting and grading syllabus content; thirdly, selecting and creating materials and learning activities (delivered through appropriate resources); fourthly, monitoring and assessing learner progress; and lastly, course evaluation (Nunan:1988:6). “At UTS, people are starting to develop new approaches to their curriculum …….. the very practical need to provide an effective service to a diverse clientele. Product Diversity at UTS means making a new curriculum and establishing new learning relationships” (Cope and Kalantzis:1997:139). Unfortunately, the QRITC experience of applying centralised native speaker (NS) focussed programs in contexts outside of their original intended design, without due consideration of the contextual variances, leave a wake of clients that are either dissatisfied with, or disadvantaged by their experience.
Learner Differences
Further to the cultural bias, differences of learner orientation were not given due consideration in the QRITC curriculum. Differences of the diverse learner group such as educational background and therefore educational expectation were not considered. The courses were constructed and delivered without such consideration. Integral in this approach is the euro-centric values and beliefs of the European Australian designers. Attitudes to life, employment, education and learning styles are assumed. Integral to this are one’s own learning experience, the cultural thinking processes of their generation, and their focus of their responsibility as leaders within the educational environment. Success within the QRITC management system is measured in terms of governmental accountability, political demands, and industry expected outcomes. Of course, this approach is underpinned by western values and beliefs. The degree of success therefore of those whose learning style falls outside this western accepted way is dependant upon the degree that these non-westernised learners are prepared to or can assimilate a particular learning style as their own learning style. By doing this, the learners are forced to adapt to the western accepted way in order to succeed.
The extent of learner learning style differenceneed not only vary between obvious culturally diverse groups, such as Asian, indigenous to western; but also between various sub-cultural groups within the one culture, such as male and female learners and learning styles, visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and digital learners and learning styles, irrespective of the learner’s cultural traditions. Howard Gardner (1994), a well regarded contemporary proponent of learning styles, recently wrote:
“We are not all the same; we do not all have the same kinds of minds, education works most effectively for most individuals if these differences in mentation and strengths are taken into account rather that denied or ignored”.
At its most fundamental, learning theory proposes that individuals possess a unique combination of personality traits, perceptual differences and cognitive tendencies form a particular type or style ( Myers and McCaulley 1985), and there are certain learning strategies related to type or style. Research on styles suggests that different learners need different modes of assistance. Concrete-sequential learners need to be told what to do and exactly how to do it, whereas intuitive learners want to find their own answers. Thinking – feeling oriented learners want factual feedback, whereas feeling – oriented learners want greater emotional support. Knowing about styles, especially as they relate to the assistance needed by the learners, would certain enable the trainer to provide an effective learning environment Therefore, a congruent learning approach, a multicultural approach that satisfies the learning objectives of a much broader population base is desired.
A holistic approach to learning via a more inclusive curriculum is desirable for a diverse learner group. A more holistic curriculum that does not overlook the learner’s cultural background has been shown to have great benefit for the learner. Armstrong, Cummins, Gardner and Freire show the benefits of a relevant, culturally-specific educational approach and what can be achieved. All learners should be provided with a range of teaching pedagogy that addresses a range of learning styles. Students have preferred learning styles, different levels of skill, and varied outside responsibilities. Individual differences need to be addressed in curriculum design. Individual differences theory suggest that learners learn in different ways and that no single styles of teaching is useful to all. As Brand (1998, 50) reinforces, programs designed for technological development can be effective when programming offers flexibility and not based on a one size fits all philosophy.
