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.

Teacher Training

 With the ongoing trend of an increase in the number of Non – Native English (NNEs) speakers studying within Australian Tertiary Institutions, training needs to be provided to all teacher and lecturers to ensure both their pedagogy and their curriculum design is inclusive of the broader range of multicultural clientele participating in their courses. Educators and administrators are continually extended to find methods to prepare teachers adequately for the range of demands they may experience in the classroom. Adequate training can better prepare teachers for the teaching and learning environment, positively affecting the student’s learning experience and the degree to which these students can ultimately integrate and contribute in society beyond the tertiary course. inclusion of technology in the classroom. Large investments in equipment and mass educator training sessions have been the trend as schools focus on producing technologically literate students. Generally, administrators focus on cost effective group -oriented delivery systems, while teachers are primarily concerned with skill building, level of competency, and relevant classroom application.

Additional to the cultural training needs, administrators and educators agree that present methods of teacher training fail to produce the desired outcome of valid integration of technology into the curriculum (Persky:1989:25). While current technologies expand to include electronic resource sharing, distance learning and interactive video, many educators do not yet have the basic skills necessary to produce a document on a word processor or manage grades on a computerised system (Persky:1989:29). As Nunan suggests, teachers use a range of content, methods and resources that are suitable for different environments, inline with the specific needs of the group (Nunan:1991:228-248). For teachers, courses and modules within teacher education programmes need to be developed. The need for educators to know how to use the computer to accomplish daily tasks is becoming crucial, and demands for computer training are growing.

 Educational Organisation Ancilliary Services

To overcome the lack of teacher efficiencies, many schools and organisations have taken to employing technology in order to offset and improve upon the cost of having teacher manned classrooms or resource spaces. As a result there has been a trend recently amongst educational institutions to develop their Information Technology (IT) team by employing the services of IT specialists with the view to advising their Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) needs. QRITC followed this trend and employed a part-time off-site IT specialist.   Management then expected this part-time IT specialist to maintain the institute’s hardware and software,  as well as assist teachers with the use of technology in the classroom. I observed the scope of duties and the minimal support offered to the specialist IT staff often overwhelmed them. Teachers who are determined to advance their skills, or who already have computer background, benefit from the presence of a part-time specialist. However, there were a number of other staff who did not possess significant computer experience, or were also suffering from a degree of anxiety towards using technology in the classroom. A possible solution QRITC could have considered would have been to employ the services of a full-time site-based specialist to have more time on-site to assist staff and students with the IT issues – operational and user-based . A full-time technology support perhaps could have provided the teachers time to learn and consider how they could implement technology in the school. While the teacher is responsible for teacher education and support, part of their professional function needs to also allow for them being trained in a range of appropriate technology, followed by time to research contemporary views on application in a CAL environment. A full-time site-based IT specialist could also advise as to what equipment may be appropriate given findings of the research and an applied analysis of the needs of that educational department in that particular organisation. Such a a full-time site-based IT specialist could become an important ancillary service to the educational department, working with and assisting the teacher to establish both a technologically appropriate solution to meet the specific educational organisational needs.

However, QRITC decided to purchase a large amount of IT equipment without the benefit of a site-based specialist or active interaction, research, analysis and discussion of the specific educational organisational needs. Unfortunately, what I observed as a result 18 months after the initial IT purchase,was a heavily IT resourced  education department with much of the equipment not able to function properly due to the lack of appropriate systems in place to support that IT system. Additionally, much of the technology was being used in a very limited capacity from a CAL pedagogical point of view. I believe the situation I observed  occurred due to the lack of planning, research and engagement of the staff and learners by the QRITC management and the education leaders in the decision-making process to determine an effective and valid solution to the specific issues within the QRITC learning environment.  QRITC teaching staff were not provided training in a range of appropriate technology; teaching staff were not invited into the discussion regarding the challenges they were experiencing in the multi-cultural learning environments; teaching staff were not invited or encouraged to investigate CAL pedagogy;  and consider a range of options that may address the specific issues within the QRITC learning environment. Given this, I wonder on what basis QRITC management and the education leaders decided to purchase the large amount of IT equipment? Was the equipment  a technologically appropriate solution to meet the specific educational organisational needs?  A summary of the equipment and services bought follows: 16 Pentium terminals for the students, 3 for the instructors, 2 servers, a CD stacker, modem, printers, Internet access, as well as a broad range of software and the appropriate site licences. The dollar cost of purchase of this equipment was approximately $68,000. Additional costs included the cost of installation, setting up of both Computer Aided Learning (CAL) and Computer Aided Language Learning (CALL) software, the customising of these, and maintenance of the system once installed. This included assigning a budget to external consultants and sub-contractors over a 12 –18 month period. Such expenditure represented a significant outlay to the educational institution, and with any investment, it would have been reassuring to know that accompanying this significant investigation, there was robust discussion, research and consideration of multiple options; taking into account the educational context, the learners and their expected outcomes, the educational philosophy of the institute, and ofcourse, the design of the curriculum.

 

Global Educational Model to Change

Today, the use of technology has quickly grown beyond the realm of luxury. There are few schools and classrooms that do not have access to various technologies ranging from VCR’s to computers and satellite communications. In this essay, I have attempted to highlight the  show that the use of Computer Technology as a means of counterbalancing the perpetuating of outmoded parameters. It is a trend that has the potential to change the form, the delivery and influence the content of the curriculum. However, as shown in the QRITC example, it also brings with it its own set of shortcomings. These need to be carefully considered prior to widespread embrace. Like all technological development, its real strength is in its’ application as a tool in the process of a specific context; not as a means unto itself, but merely as a tool. And as with any tool, the usefulness of a tool is based upon how appropriate the tool is for that specific function; and how well one has been taught to use it. With the increasing development and availability of technology, a systematic restructuring of schools is occuring to meet the technology needs of the organisation, and also to better equip the teachers for integrating technology effectively, into the learning environment.  Whilst I would hope that technology is embraced as a potential avenue to support the learning of their students, organisational strategies need to be developed to ensure appropriate levels of access for all those involved – namely teachers and students – are facilitated. Central to this restructuring effort and facilitating access is the professional development of teachers. In America President Clinton has put the challenge to the whole nation:

             ” In schools, every classroom in America must be connected to the information super highway with computer and good software and well-trained teachers”. President Bill Clinton (Bush and Terry :1997:263)

Only through extensive preservice and inservice activities will teachers acquire the understanding, skills and confidence they need to use technology in their classroom and prepare their students for an information based society. I will now outline an approach that QRITC could take in their restructuring and ensuring appropriate levels of access are facilitated .

Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) Teacher Training

Once the curriculum has been designed for optimal learning experience, the “program should then effectively enable the teacher to facilitate positive and effective learning experiences”(Page 2008).

The pedagogy that the teacher chooses for a particular training workshop will influence the learning experience of the participants. In contemporary computer teacher training, there are currently two distinct approaches. The first approach includes both concentrated and generic workshops. Concentrated workshops are workshops where volume of content and information is offered, but little time is allocated for tasks where the participants can practice and absorb that content. A generic workshop on the other hand may focus on general application and offer little information that can be applied to a specific content area.

An alternate approach in contemporary computer teacher training workshops is described by Owen (1992) as hardware-centred and teacher – centred. Hardware – centred workshops are courses where students learn to use computers and new technologies through a series of focused lessons and activities. The distinguishing feature of this course as distinct from the alternative, is that the instruction and outcomes focus on the technology and its application in general and broad terms. In the teacher – centred approach, instruction and activity in information technologies is given in the context of existing programmes and the technology is used as a means to an end.

Regardless of the pedagogical approaches to these workshop, research reveals five keys to successful training:

1) Sherwood purports that one of the major barriers experience by teachers in the process of integrating technology, is the lack of time. Teachers must have substantial time to acquire and, in turn, transfer to the classroom the knowledge learnt. Although training and development time varies according to individuals, Guhlin (1996) states the time required is whatever satisfies a teacher’s need for exploratory learning. Teachers need considerable training and development so that they are firstly empowered in their own skill level before they can transfer that into the classroom.

2) The second key to successful training is differing levels proficiency of the participants must be addressed. Each group is made up of individual with skill levels varying from none at all to highly proficient. Fast-paced, group-oriented in-service sessions therefore, do not enhance learning. It offers useful information to small number of trainees. Training therefore must begin at a skill level of the educators to ensure success. As often the case in adult second language learning, intelligence is equated with the level of proficiency in the language. So it comes to be assume that elementary students are not as intelligent as the advanced level students are. This assumption of course has no basis, and teachers who do toy with the idea soon realise the error of their ways. In computer training a parallel scenario would be that a trainer equates the level of technical knowledge to intelligence. Level of anxiety and stress is usually high at the beginner level and it would be up to the trainer to help the learners overcome the anxiety and stress.

3) The third key is that a vast majority of time should be spent actively working with technology, in small groups and individually. Learning a skill requires active interaction with people and things, requirement that is not satisfied by passively watching and listening to a presentation. In an article title Restructuring for Learning with Technology: The potential for Synergy, Karen Sheigold writes:

                          ”Effective learning hinges on the active engagement of students in constructing their own knowledge and understanding. Such learning is not a solitary practice; it occurs through interaction with support from the world of people and objects” (1991,19)

4) The fourth key to successful training is that the training session should focus on functionality rather than newness and complexity with regard to hardware and software tools. Less complex software and hardware is often superior for beginner projects because it can be learned more quickly.

5) Ritchie and Wilburg (1994) state that skills and knowledge gained in workshops frequently are not transferred to professional activity because of the lack of on going assistance and development. Coaching or mentoring is one approach that can be used to sustain the cognitive momentum created through workshops as teachers explore implementing new skills and knowledge into their teaching. Novice users of technology can be paired with more experienced users, who act as mentors. Mentors assist their partners by clarifying concepts, discussing problem areas and collaboration to find workable solutions, and tutoring in the use of hardware and software. Through this process, novice teachers gain confidence in their ability to thoughtfully integrate technology in their teaching. When an expert teacher provides the instruction, the teacher- learners also have a benchmark for measuring their own progress.

If technology is to be used by students, then teacher confidence, understanding, skill to effectively incorporate technology into their teaching practices. This will only occur by providing adequate training and development. So far technology has had little impact on a significant number of classrooms. Educators will continue to respond negatively to the introduction of computer assisted learning. In America The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in America now includes a set of standards for educational technology. The standards recommend that every teacher acquire a set of foundation skills and concepts related to technology, regardless of the teacher’s area of specialisation. These standards includes ability of perform tasks and demonstrate various skills on the basic computer programs to multimedia and hypermedia . It would seem logical to assume that the Australian body for teacher accreditation would do the same. School and governments will continue to invest billions of dollars in the latest hardware and software, but their goals and measurable educational improvements will continue to fall short unless they realistically invest in their most important resource, their teachers. The lack of effectiveness of technology training for educators has been a major deterrent in the implementation of technology resources in the classroom. Universities are graduating teachers with minimal computer training. Glenn and Carrier agree that educators are entering the classroom lacking sufficient skills and exposure to use technology. “Since information systems become more complex and change rapidly, teachers are handicapped even before they start” (1986, 68).

Conclusion

In this essay, I have discussed a number of considerations when educational institutions explore the idea of offering computer assisted learning (CAL) with the vision of enhancing the student learning experience.

 Whilst technology is rapidly developing world-wide, there is a cost to this technology that may be a barrier to entry for certain persons or cultures within nations where such a cost is prohibitive. Additionally, certain cultures or lifestyles may not allow for the dependencies of computer technology such as power and land lines for internet access (eg: nomadic cultures).  So whilst we in a developed western nation have broad access to computer technology, it would be false to assume that is the case for every person in every nation, and therefore a CAL program offered to a range of nationalities may have diverse levels of previous experience with that technology. I then examined how curriculum needed to be designed with a particular learner in mind, to avoid a common error in my experience where the curriculum encompassed very particular and specific cultural bias that excluded certain learners, rather than being inclusive. Extending this point, certain curriculum is biased towards a particular language (in the examples provided English), and this too could be an overlooked design feature that excludes certain learners, rather than including them.

Following I discussed how diverse each learner can potentially be, even within one cultural,  language group or gender. Learning theory has found learners favouring either visual, auditory, kinaesthetic or digital0based learners irrespective of the learner’s cultural traditions. Other influences were also noted to be one’s generation and style of education they experienced within their compulsory education as a child and adolescent. This has implications for teacher training with regard to both the multicultural awareness of the brooding ethnic mix within Australian’s institutions, but also the broadening of the teacher’s pedagogy to be inclusive of a greater range of learning styles.

Further, with the advancement of technology, computer assisted learning (CAL) needs to be both philosophically and pedagogically  considered by an educational organisational team to ensure that they can meet the specific learning outcomes of that particular organisation. To not do such, may result in a large expenditure of the organisation’s budget for little benefit to the education department – the teacher’s, the learners and their learning outcomes. IT support is a crucial functional role in this process, to assist with both purchasing, installing and maintaining the hardware, but also with the training of the staff in extended use of the technology. With technological advancement, it is recognised that future generations will have increasing levels of computer technology in their lives; and therefore it is essential to commence planning for computer assisted learning (CAL) across all learning platforms. With this however, management of educational organisations must accept and embrace this pending era by providing adequate levels of teacher training programs. It is only through extensive preservice and inservice activities that  teachers will acquire the understanding, skills and confidence they need to use technology in their classroom and prepare their students for an information based society. I concluded my essay outlining two alternate approaches that QRITC could take in their facilitation of effective computer assisted learning, highlighting five keys to ensure that the most effective training can take place.

Bibliography

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. ELT Journal, 58, 125-129.

Aviram, A (1996) The Decline of the Modern Paradigm in Education. International Review of Education, 42(5),421;423 – 443

Baerwald, T J (1987) Thirteen Tips for Teaching Geography in any Setting. Journal of Teacher Education, 86, 165 -167

Birch, B. (1996). Aspects of Peace Education Which Should Concern Writers of ESL Materials. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Chicago.

Blanton, L. L. (1992). A Holistic Approach to College ESL: Integrating Language and Content. ELT Journal, 46, 285-293.

Bragaw, D. H. (1991) Priority: Curriculum. The Global Imperative and Its’ Metalanguage. Foreign Language Annuals. April, 115-124.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching Global Iinterdependence as a Subversive Activity. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.Washington, DC.

Crandall, J. (1993). Content-Centered Language Learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111-126.

Critical multiculturalism image courtesy of Critical Multiculturalism Accessed 15th October 2013

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.

Development:A Case Study. TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol 23, No 1.ppg-25.

Dorman, W. A. (1992, August). The Not So Odd Couple: Critical Thinking and Global Education. Paper presented at the annual international conference for critical thinking and moral critique. Rohnert Park, CA.

Drake, C. (1987). Educating for Responsible Global Citizenship. Journal of Geography, 86, 300-306.

Drucker,PF, Dyson,E Handy, C, Saffo,P and Senge, PM (1997). Looking Ahead:Implications of the Present Harvard Business Review, Sept- Oct,pp18 –20

Elder, P., & Carr, M. A. (1987). Worldways: Bringing the World into the Classroom. Menlo Park (CA): Addison-Wesley.

Erickson, F. (1997). Culture in Society and in Educational Practices. In J.A. Banks and C.A. McGee-Banks, (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and Perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Fekete, J. (Ed.) (1988), Life After Postmodernism: Essays on Value and Culture, London, MacMillan.

Freeman, D., Freeman, Y., & Gonzales, G. (1987). Success for ESP students: The Sunnyside sheltered English program. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 361-67.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.

Glenn, A.D. and Carrier, C.A., (1986). Teacher education and computer training: An assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(1), pp.67-80.

Global Society image courtesy of Development of society  Accessed 15th October 2013

Goldberg, D.T. (1994). Introduction: Multicultural conditions. In D.T. Goldberg, Multiculturalism: A critical reader. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers

Grant, C.A. and Sleeter, C.E. (1986). Education Equity: Education That Is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist. Journal of Education Equity and Leadership, 6. 105-118.

Harris, R. and Schutte, R. (1985), A Review of Competency-Based Occupational Education, in P. Mountney and P.S.Mageean (Eds) Issues in TAFE, Payneham, SA, TAFE National Centre for Research and Development, pp 43-65.

Hanvey, R. G. (1982). An Attainable Global Perspective. Theory into Practice, 21, 162-67.

Knoebel M, and Lankshear, C (1994) Learning Genres:Prospects For Empowerment. QUT:Brisbane

Ladson-Billings, G (1995) But that’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159 – 165

Learning Philosophy image courtesy of:  Learning  Accessed 15th October 2013

Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to know. Boulder: Westview Press.

McCarthy, C. and Crichlow, (1993) Race, Identity and Representation in Education. New York: Routledge.

London, K. (1988). Global Peace Begins In Our Classrooms. The Language Teacher, 12(2), 21-35.

Merryfield, M. M. (1993). Reflective Practice In Global Education Strategies For Teacher Educators. Theory into Practice, 32, 27-32.

Merryfield, M. M. (1994). Teacher education in global and international education. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.

Multicultural Diversity image courtesy of Multicultural Diversity  Accessed 15th October 2013

Nunan, D. (1985). Toward a Collaborative Approach to Curriculum

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (1995). The Common Curriculum: Policies and Outcomes, Grades 1-9. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training.

Page, David (2008). Educational Philosophy Part 1 Accessed 15th October 2013

Page, David (1998). International Education Part 1 Accessed 15th October 2013

Parkinson, L and OSullivan,K. (1990). Negotiating The Learner Centered Curriculum. In Brindley,G.(ed). 1990. The Second Language Curriculum In Action. Sydney:NCELT.

Peaty, D. (1995). Environmental Issues. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House.

Sessoms, I. (1994). A Conceptual Model of Infusing Multicultural Curriculum In Various Academic Disciplines in Higher Education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association Multicultural Education, Detroit.

Technology in Learning image courtesy of:  Technology  Accessed 15th October 2013

Tye, K. A., & Kniep, W. M. (1991). Global education around the world. Educational Leadership, 48, 47-49.

Urch, G. E. (1992). Global Education: The Time Is Now. Educational Horizons, 71, 15-17.

Wahlstrom, M. A., & Clarken, R. H. (1992). Preparing Teachers For Education That Is Multicultural and Global. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.

Wallerstein, N. (1983). Language and Culture in Conflict: Problem-Posing in the ESL Classroom. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Wenden, A. L. (1992). Peace Education: What and Why. TESOL Matters, 2(1), 1-6.

Yoshimura, M. (1993). Teaching Global Issues to Children. The Language Teacher, 17(5), 11-15.

– ©David L Page 20/11/1998

– updated ©David L Page 16/10/2013

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

International Learners Studying in Australia

There is a growing number of Non – Native English (NNEs) speakers within the Australian Tertiary sector. Figures obtained from 3 Australian Tertiary Institutions shows an overall increase in the number of Non – Native English (NNEs) speakers studying within Australian over the past 10 years. The environs of the Australian Tertiary Institution therefore is one of a multicultural nature. I intend to show that Australian Tertiary Institutions, in teaching to a multicultural clientele in a traditional Éuro-western manner are disregarding the cultural heritage and therefore the needs of these NNEs participating in the course. This then impacts the degree to which these students can integrate and contribute in society.

I will firstly give the historical development as to how these barriers came to exist, followed by the consequences of this. I have then made some suggestions for leaders, social and educational to assist in the process. Cultural hegemony is defined by Erickson as “the established view of things — a commonsense view of what is and why things happen that serves the interests of those people already privileged in a society” (1997: 49). Education is a very effective vehicle for achieving either the empowerment or exclusion of individuals or groups in society (Knoebel & Lankshear:1994:5). The many facets of life which are adversely affected by a hegemonic social order include the political, the economic, the social, the psychological, the personal, and beyond. For the purposes of this discussion on why and how multiculturalism is currently embraced — seeing as it is illogical to assume that any facet of life can be separated from another — all of these aspects inform education, broadly, and pedagogy, specifically.

Goldberg offers a history of the monocultural ideal which fostered the present-day need for a multicultural vision of society. He claims that in the late nineteenth century, monoculturalism emerged as an institutional ideology which served to create the impression of an intellectual tradition where there was none. By the mid-twentieth century, this Western European monocultural ideal, cemented in other ‘Westernised’ nations as hegemonic intellectual and institutional practice, “reflected and reproduced the lines of ethnoracialized demarcation” in order to keep them “white” (1994: 4). As political, technological, and economic interests became global links between countries, cultural hegemony spread beyond the borders of the Western European countries and other Westernised’ nations, such as the United States and Australia. With the creation of the “Third World” order by “First World” dominance and domination, Goldberg suggests that monocultural assumptions and prescriptions abounded for those in the “Third World” who were thought unable to think and act for themselves (1994:4). As monoculturalism universalizes the values, traditions, and language of a single culture while marginalizing and pathologizing all others, in a multicultural society, monoculturalism is absolutely equal to cultural hegemony.

In Australia, monoculturalism was and continues to be operationalised through assimilation. McCarthy (1993) claims that at the turn of the century, assimilationist ideology grew out of a Euro-Western response to the increasing presence of immigrants who were a potential threat to the established Euro-Western monocultural social order. Assimilation was thus a means of giving up one’s “un-European” or “ethnic” culture in order to embrace that dictated by the monocultural interpretation (Goldberg: 1994: 4). This is what blending into the melting pot, in essence, becoming a part of the mainstream, entails — the renunciation of “one’s subjectivity in name, culture, and as far as possible, colour” (Goldberg: 1994: 5). Power in Euro-Western society belongs to those who continue to define values monoculturally, and thus everything is shaped to serve their interests.

With the advent of the 1960s, those who were continually forced to assimilate — all the “others” as defined by the mainstream — began to assert themselves politically and culturally (Goldberg: 1994: 5-6). Due to demographic shifts and social movements, the 1960’s signalled a shift from the ideal of assimilation to one of integration. Integration, according to Goldberg, gave ethnic groups control of their private lives at the margins while continuing to define central values monoculturally (1994: 6). The monocultural centre of Australian life was not challenged very much by small groups attempting to integrate. Even with political and cultural acknowledgment at the margins, however, the “others” continued to be economically oppressed (1994: 6). The fact that ethnic groups were starving for economic and cultural inclusion, “insurgent cultural expressions” could be either suppressed or diluted through the “tokenism of economic and cultural appropriation” (1994: 6). That is, with the offer of a mainstream, middle class lifestyle, the “Others” who made too much noise were quieted down.

In response to the history of rejection, assimilation, integration, and subjugation, Goldberg claims that multiculturalism and commitments to cultural diversity have emerged which are resistant to monoculturalism (1994: 7). Macedo sees multiculturalism as calling into question “Western cultural hegemony and the barbarism Western cultures committed against other cultural groups in the name of ‘civilising’ the ‘barbaric’ other” (1994: 39). The fact that a multicultural ideal has been able to surface is proof that White patriarchal supremacy, which silences and subjugates others, no longer has the magnitude of power that it once enjoyed. “It is an educational imperative that we recognise that in the late 20th century, the needs of humanity to transcend cultural difference or national borders as we share a common future” (Merryfield:1994: 7). Multicultural society, viewed as an aggregation of individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds, is now faced with a challenge: developing an educational system that reflects it’s societal needs. The current era, characterised by an aging middle class population, leaving a smaller percentage of the population to generate the economic needs to fund the society (Drucker et al:1997:19), requires all ‘productive’ members of society as fully functioning, independent contributors. For its very survival, it needs for all society, irrespective of cultural background to be able to access relevant and appropriate education.

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, çulturally congruent, culturally responsive, and culturally compatible (Ladson-Billings:1995:159). Bartolome in Ladson-Billings “has argued for a humanising pedagogy that respects and uses the reality, history, and perspectives of students as an integral part of educational perspective (1994:173)” (Ladson-Billings:1995:160). 3 criteria underpins culturally relevant pedagogy: “(a) Students must experience academic success; (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural competance; and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order” (Ladson-Billings:1995:160). An integral part of the success of such a program is the ‘methodology’ that the teaching staff adopt. “The teachers kept the relations between themselves and their students fluid and equitable”. Displaying a participative approach, “they encourage the students to act as teachers, and they themselves often functioned as learners in the classroom”. ”For these teachers, knowledge is continuously recreated, recycled and shared by the teachers and the students. Thus, they were not dependant on state curriculum frameworks or textbooks to decide what and how to teach”. As a result, “the teachers exhibited a passion about what they were teaching – showing enthusiasm and vitality about what was being taught and learned”. “..the students came to them with skill deficiencies, the teachers worked to help the students build bridges or scaffolding so that they could be proficient in the more challenging work they experienced in the classroom” (Ladson-Billings:1995:163).

The function of education, it is said, is to maximize the human capital value of persons, in the most effective and efficient manner, for the pursuit of their individual and collective goals within a utilitarian framework (Harris & Schutte:1985:45). Educational quality is thus defined in terms of this function – that is, the effective and efficient attainment of such ends. Any assessment of the educational quality of a program therefore requires that it be done in terms of that program’s effectiveness and efficiency as a means of attaining the specified ends – the attainment of desired ends in terms of educational costs. ‘Indicators’ of educational success or performance must therefore focus either directly on individual educational gains, or indirectly on the consequential market outcomes (such as employment gains or reduced criminality). However, those performance indicators that focus on educational procedures (such as the attainment of targets for the representation of ethnic minorities in educational programs) are therefore seen as only temporary measures to offset the distorting effects of past ethnic discrimination. The ideal free market in education requires only outcome measures: truly outcomes-driven education (Harris & Schutte:1985:47).

Therefore, the maximization of educational effectiveness requires, most importantly:

1. the prior specification of the intended educational outcomes (as goals or objectives) or their consequences;

2. the management of the ensuing education in such a way as to maximize the attainment of those desired ends ;and

3. the evaluation of that education and its entailed learning in such a way as to assess the extent to which the desired ends have been realised in actual educational outcomes or their consequences Harris & Schutte:1985:48).

Given this then, we as a society must reevaluate what outcomes that it is desirous of. Aviram is of the opinion that for this repositioning to occur, a social evolution with the stripping of old parameters is necessary. It would need for the organisation of social beings to be different to that which it is currently. It would need for the definitions of organisations to be changed, causing “the organisation to be regarded as a different organisation”(1996:426). Aviram suggests that the aims, target audience, organisational activities, organisational structure and methods need to be synergised into new constructs. These models developed could then “pave the way for a new educational paradigm”, indicating the starting point of the “new educational world” (1996:435).  Teaching Non-Native speakers via a more inclusive curriculum; via a more wholistic curriculum that doesn’t take Euro – Western cultural background, understanding and performance expectation for granted. Yes, a change to the current way of delivering education. To deny an active, productive group within the society of relevant educational knowledge and understanding, is to deny them the opportunity to take their rightful place as social contributors, and to deny the rest of society the opportunity to as a collective, to fulfill our economic aspirations. A multiculturally congruent approach: an approach that satisfies the learning objectives of a much broader population base then is required. To help students become responsible social citizens, teachers should strive to educate students in a more pro-active manner. This can be achieved by a heuristic approach. This would in turn direct the student’s learning by choosing the content relevant to their needs. To achieve the difficult goal of creating independent, thoughtful students choose their content with great care and consideration. The truism about today’s youth becoming tomorrow’s leaders demands education about global issues.

In my experience, differences in learner orientation such as educational background and therefore educational expectation are not given due consideration in the way courses that are offered to culturally diverse groups are being constructed and delivered. Incorporate in this approach are the eurocentric values and beliefs of the European Australian context of its’ design/designers. Attitudes to life, employment, education and learning styles are assumed. Integral to this are cultural thinking processes and a perception of one’s community responsibilities.

By doing this, clients and participants are forced to adapt to the western accepted way in order to succeed, or not. The degree of success therefore of those whose learning style falls outside this western accepted way is dependant upon them assimilating this method as their own learning style. Furthermore, this successful learning culture need 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/learning styles, visual, auditory, kinesthetic and digital learners/learning styles, irrespective/in addition to the learner’s cultural traditions. For a fully functioning society, the development of human resources could be argued as being of paramount importance. Participation is already acknowledged as an important characteristic of the new order, with a more wholistic, self-understanding, heuristic approach complimenting this way. Armstrong, 1994; Cummins, 1986; Gardner, 1993; and Freire, 1972 show the benefits of a relevant, empowering educational approach and what can be achieved within their community. Whilst the teacher acts more in the vain of a facilitator, they guide the learners to what education they need, the kinds of processes they need to acquire and which global issues could be covered.

Within the tertiary context of my experience, my students create a foundation that covers the basic issues of how the course will be run. Students often plan to research a small number of global topics deeply, and decide their assessment collectively. With students making plans relatively independently, they discover the intrinsic importance of the human rights or environmental issues they choose to study. In order to be sure of the quality of the course, various forms of continual feedback can be drawn upon. Encouraging students to make responsible decisions, demands that as teachers we trust our students: to trust our students as learned recipients of an empowering process. Students empowered to create a peaceful, tolerant, and sustainable environment in the community of their classroom are naturally better prepared to create the same environment in the world itself. Beginning university students irrespective of their cultural background may never have been encouraged to think about global issues before. More importantly, university graduates might never have the chance again. Widespread ignorance of global issues among first year university students is hardly surprising, but it can be cured.

As a university teacher, I feel responsible for demonstrating a meaningful connection between my students’ lives and issues of global significance. For those university ESL teachers who would like to “inject” global ideas into their classes, suggestions have been made by Baerwald (1987), Birch (1996), Crandall (1993), Dorman, (1992), Elder and Carr (1987), Sessoms (1994), Wahlstrom and Clarken (1992), and Wenden (1992). Although they represent a wide variety of disciplines, all these educators advocate “superimposing” (London, 1991, p. 22) global issues throughout the curriculum. As a university teacher, I have used research and trial and error to develop ways to infuse global issues into every university language-learning classroom. Keeping Freire’s (1972) ideas about leaving crucial decisions up to the learner in mind, I have found learners willing to be led in their learning self-responsibility and in the development of their global awareness. I would have liked to offer some specifics about the teacher’s role in this process, but the limits of this essay prevent me from doing it here. I have then made some suggestions for leaders, social and educational to assist in the process.

Conclusion

Within this essay I have 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 reevaluate 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  pose is: 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.

With reference to my tertiary educational institutional experience, I propose 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.

This blog series is planned to continue next month with International Education Part 3.

Bibliography

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. ELT Journal, 58, 125-129.

Aviram, A (1996) The Decline of the Modern Paradigm in Education. International Review of Education, 42(5),421;423 – 443

Baerwald, T J (1987) Thirteen Tips for Teaching Geography in any Setting. Journal of Teacher Education, 86, 165 -167

Birch, B. (1996). Aspects of Peace Education Which Should Concern Writers of ESL Materials. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Chicago.

Blanton, L. L. (1992). A Holistic Approach to College ESL: Integrating Language and Content. ELT Journal, 46, 285-293.

Bragaw, D. H. (1991) Priority: Curriculum. The Global Imperative and Its’ Metalanguage. Foreign Language Annuals. April, 115-124.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching Global Iinterdependence as a Subversive Activity. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.Washington, DC.

Crandall, J. (1993). Content-Centered Language Learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111-126.

Critical multiculturalism image courtesy of Critical Multiculturalism Accessed 15th October 2013

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.

Dorman, W. A. (1992, August). The Not So Odd Couple: Critical Thinking and Global Education. Paper presented at the annual international conference for critical thinking and moral critique. Rohnert Park, CA.

Drake, C. (1987). Educating for Responsible Global Citizenship. Journal of Geography, 86, 300-306.

Drucker,PF, Dyson,E Handy, C, Saffo,P and Senge, PM(1997). Looking Ahead:Implications of the Present Harvard Business Review, Sept- Oct,pp18 –20

Elder, P., & Carr, M. A. (1987). Worldways: Bringing the World into the Classroom. Menlo Park (CA): Addison-Wesley.

Erickson, F. (1997). Culture in Society and in Educational Practices. In J.A. Banks and C.A. McGee-Banks, (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and Perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Fekete, J. (Ed.) (1988), Life After Postmodernism: Essays on Value and Culture, London, MacMillan.

Freeman, D., Freeman, Y., & Gonzales, G. (1987). Success for ESP students: The Sunnyside sheltered English program. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 361-67.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.

Goldberg, D.T. (1994). Introduction: Multicultural conditions. In D.T. Goldberg, Multiculturalism: A critical reader. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers

Grant, C.A. and Sleeter, C.E. (1986). Education Equity: Education That Is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist. Journal of Education Equity and Leadership, 6. 105-118.

Harris, R. and Schutte, R. (1985), A Review of Competency-Based Occupational Education, in P. Mountney and P.S.Mageean (Eds) Issues in TAFE, Payneham, SA, TAFE National Centre for Research and Development, pp 43-65.

Hanvey, R. G. (1982). An Attainable Global Perspective. Theory into Practice, 21, 162-67.

Knoebel M, and Lankshear, C (1994) Learning Genres:Prospects For Empowerment. QUT:Brisbane

Ladson-Billings, G (1995) But that’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159 – 165

Leadership image courtesy of  Leadership  Accessed 15th October 2013

Learning Philosophy image courtesy of:  Learning  Accessed 15th October 2013

Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to know. Boulder: Westview Press.

McCarthy, C. and Crichlow, (1993) Race, Identity and Representation in Education. New York: Routledge.

London, K. (1988). Global Peace Begins In Our Classrooms. The Language Teacher, 12(2), 21-35.

Merryfield, M. M. (1993). Reflective Practice In Global Education Strategies For Teacher Educators. Theory into Practice, 32, 27-32.

Merryfield, M. M. (1994). Teacher education in global and international education. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.

Nunan,D. 1985. Toward a Collaborative Approach to Curriculum

Development:A Case Study. TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol 23, No 1.ppg-25.

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (1995). The Common Curriculum: Policies and Outcomes, Grades 1-9. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training.

Multicultural Diversity image courtesy of Multicultural Diversity  Accessed 15th October 2013

Parkinson, L and OSullivan,K. (1990). Negotiating The Learner Centered Curriculum. In Brindley,G.(ed). 1990. The Second Language Curriculum In Action. Sydney:NCELT.

Peaty, D. (1995). Environmental Issues. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House.

Sessoms, I. (1994). A Conceptual Model of Infusing Multicultural Curriculum In Various Academic Disciplines in Higher Education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association Multicultural Education, Detroit.

Student image courtesy of  Curriculum Design  Accessed 15th October 2013

Tye, K. A., & Kniep, W. M. (1991). Global education around the world. Educational Leadership, 48, 47-49.

Urch, G. E. (1992). Global Education: The Time Is Now. Educational Horizons, 71, 15-17.

Wahlstrom, M. A., & Clarken, R. H. (1992). Preparing Teachers For Education That Is Multicultural and Global. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.

Wallerstein, N. (1983). Language and Culture in Conflict: Problem-Posing in the ESL Classroom. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Wenden, A. L. (1992). Peace Education: What and Why. TESOL Matters, 2(1), 1-6.

Yoshimura, M. (1993). Teaching Global Issues to Children. The Language Teacher, 17(5), 11-15.

– ©David L Page 15/11/1998

– updated ©David L Page 16/10/2013

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

Vocational Education provision to International students

There is a growing number of Non – Native English (NNEs) speakers within the Australian post-compulsory education sector. Figures obtained from Australian Tertiary Institutions shows an overall increase in the number of Non – Native English (NNEs) speakers studying within Australian over the past 10 years with an expectation the trend will continue in the coming decades.

Queensland Racing Industry Training Centre (QRITC)

The Queensland Racing Industry Training Centre (QRITC) provides vocational and pre-vocational training for the Queensland Racing Industry (QRI). This training is provided to both State participants as well as participants from International markets that want to take advantage of the level of training that is offered in Australia for this Industry.

Delivery is via nationally (Australian) accredited curriculum that is arguably on par with world Racing Industry Training standards. Methodology implored is traditional classroom style (handouts, worksheets and tests), with some experiential fieldwork, and with ‘instructional’ resources including Computer Technology. It is this last aspect, utilising Computer Technology as an ‘Instructional’ Resource within a pre-vocational training institution that I wish to explore within the parameters of this essay. I will analyse what I have learnt from the study of this institution, showing how the issues of Global education clarify my understanding of sound educational institutional practice. The theoretical basis of this essay is found in part 2 of this blog. I recommend it is read prior to the reading of this essay.

As we approach the end of the millennium, it is has become clear that technology should play a vital role in the way in which we educate our students (Lankshear and Knobel:1997:pp133-163). Following such advice, QRITC elected to install a ‘state of the art’ Computer Learning facility at the Deagon campus.This involved the purchase of a considerable amount of computer equipment, with the total cost far exceeding $100,000. Aviram talks about the pioneering quality that we as educationalists should be displaying (Aviram:1996:pp423-443). In line with this philosophy, QRITC expanded its’ student educational schedule to include a range of CAL and CALL sessions for each class, instead of the more traditional or experiential classroom instruction. This continued for about a 6 – 9 month period.

However, it was at this point that management started to receive feedback that the learning process was considered far from satisfactory. Both staff and students were despondent about the quality of learning opportunities (or the lack there of) that existed. Staff complained that whilst activities incorporated the Internet and a wealth of specific content information, there were questions as to what actually the students were learning. Students were complaining that what they were doing within their computer classes what could actually be done after formal class hours, by themselves, without any instruction. They started to insist that they had paid for a practical -orientated course, rather than a computer-based one. After some investigation, and finally management intervention, the instructional schedule was altered again, this time with far less CAL and CALL sessions allotted for each class. The number of experiential lessons was increased and immediately a positive response by both staff and students was forthcoming.

It is my purpose to look at why, in this era of technological advancement, that the attempt to incorporate technology into this particular institutional curriculum/program, failed. I will at the same time suggest what should happen in order to improve the perceived usefulness of CAL and CALL instruction.

QRITC seemed to be following an innovative educational pathway. They were investing a lot of capital into the implementation of a ‘state of the art‘ technological facility. This was quite significant given the short term that they had been operating as a commercial educational institution and the degree to which they still needed to achieve a level of income stability. There are some very sound reasons for pursuing this educational path. In their article, Lankshear and Knobel put forward two reasons for the necessary changes to the school delivery process and curriculum:

1. to keep pace with the demands of the contemporary knowledge society and a new orientation towards learning;

2. student perceptions that modern educational institutions are out of touch (Lankshear and Knobel in QUT guide:1997: pp133-163).

However some basic oversights of sound educational pedagogy prevented the implementation from being given a fair trial, preventing some would-be sceptics the opportunity of being shown how technology could not only enhance the instructional process, but add a learning opportunity that is becoming imperative to all.

The oversights at QRITC can be summarised as follows:

Inappropriate methodologies management (curriculum-program)

• Failing to consider the course objectives as a whole, in detail and determining how, if at all, technological resources could be incorporated as one of the methodologies, as an instructional tool for enhanced learning within this context;

• Failure to determine how the competencies were to be assessed, and then failing to utilise appropriate methodologies to assist the learners in arriving at this point;

• Neglecting the style of course being offered and failing to incorporate much needed industry practical or experiential sessions;

• Failing to determine whether the course, given the time constraints and the learner group, would be of an instructional or discovery style;

Inappropriate methodologies-learner (learner differences-learner style)

• Failing to address the range of learners attending the course and determining if technological resources could be incorporated as an instructional tool for their enhanced learning;

Inappropriate methodologies-learner (learner differences-motivation)

• Failing to address the range of learners attending the course and determining what they would be interested in, and offering them a range of options;

Inappropriate methodologies-learner (learner differences-educational background)

• Failing to address the range of learners attending the course by ignoring the disparity of technological literacy levels.

Inappropriate methodologies-teacher (teacher training-lesson plan)

• Incorporating technology as an add-on (that is, for its’ own sake) instead of as a tool of leverage. That is, in the playing of games instead of utilising the technology for the support of the acquisition of the content process;

There is ample evidence that the integrating of computers into the classroom opens up many issues that must be addressed (Lankshear and Knobel:1997:133-163). I believe the issues have a reciprocal impact on the following 3 main areas:

1. Curriculum;

2. Learner differences;

3. Teacher training.

In order to ensure that technology does receive a fair trial in how it can enhance the instructional process, I believe all of these three areas therefore need serious consideration. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of this essay, I will not address all three areas here, in detail. I will however attempt to show the extent of this reciprocal impact in the areas of curriculum and learner differences, from the perspective of cultural differences, on the effective delivery of quality contemporary education. I have chosen these two areas as the priority of what an organisation should consider. These macro issues, are the issues that could without initial consideration, prevent the delivery of quality contemporary education. I feel the organisation needs to give these conscious (philosophical) consideration in order to decide how they are going to deliver an inclusive educational approach. The curriculum should therefore reflect the philosophical viewpoint and address it in an appropriate manner given the anticipated cultural differences. I feel then, that at that point, worthy solutions to address the anticipated learner group disparity on an ongoing basis, can be provided through such means as teacher training. [Whilst I have therefore put forward some ideas of how one may implement a training agenda that completes the holistic delivery of quality contemporary education, I have chosen to omit this area of discussion from the main body of the essay. A suggested agenda can be found in part 3 of this International Education blog series].

Can the growth of technology assist in learning?

Computer Technology is considered by some as a means of transforming current classroom practices (reform). Others feel it could be a way of finally achieving the replacement of the contemporary school system with a high-tech learning system (change). Either way, computer technology represents at the very least reform: at the best, change from the way education is currently delivered (Lankshear and Knobel:1997:134).

The second way that the growth of technology impacts the delivery process is in the manner learning takes place. “Perelman claims that whereas instruction is the essence of school education, the essence of the coming integrated, universal, multimedia, digital network is discovery” (Lankshear and Knobel:1997:135).

Whilst it is not my intention to debate the benefits and drawbacks of both learning or delivery styles, it is important to note that they are different. In so doing, we acknowledge that due consideration should be made prior to the commencement of the program to ascertain which style is more appropriate given the unique institutional characteristics. I would argue that the delivery style an institution chooses should be dependant upon the styles that the learner and the instructors/facilitators are skilled to do. That is, that style that they have experienced or are experienced in, within their culture. Which ever style one chooses, all of the three main areas that have been highlighted already – curriculum, learner differences and teacher training – share an interdependence with this delivery style, and therefore need to be considered and addressed once the delivery style has been decided.

“The process of curriculum design is not concerned with the ‘piecing’ together of isolated factors; but in fact the assembly of a group of interdependent elements that together create a framework for effective learning “(Vale et al:1991:13).

Nunan suggests that this holistic, integrated approach of the term curriculum is necessary. So whilst most would agree that methodological style is important, its’ discussion in isolation is to be avoided. The failure to consider all of these elements, is where some instruction to Non – Native English (NNEs) speakers within the Australian Tertiary sector fail. It is the sum of these areas, that should be considered as the essential elements of effective learning programs (Nunan:1991:pp228-248).

QRITC exemplifies this failure in its ‘development’ of a computer-based program, void of any mention of a greater picture of consideration such as the complete curriculum, the learners, their needs, and their goals, the teaching staff and the delivery style. Therefore the ‘development’ of a computer-based program at QRITC was based on a whole array of assumptions, voiding it of any real chance for success. QRITC failed to contextualise the computer-based program appropriately within the operational framework that it was to exist, within the specific institutional curriculum, in order to satisfy the particular learners.

The third impact technological growth has is 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, two issues arise:

(1) 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;

(2) the degree of exclusivity that technology brings. Technology is available to a specific group of global citizens. The industrialised economically advanced 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.

In contrast, third world nation citizens are said to not have reasonable access potential. Therefore, based on the destructive spread of the western paradigm argument, this can only be positive. However, information can bfing great advantages. Issues of universal human rights and ecological awareness are two such benefits in my view (Taylor:1999:59). Therefore, the danger exists that with the growth of technology is that the information rich will become richer (that is, become more informed of their humanitarian rights, and the environmental benefits of a lifestyle) and the information poor will remain so. This inequitable distribution of the knowledge, and the additional technological skills that are associated with its’ use, will lead to further disparity in socio-economic, cultural and political spheres.

With many non –Americanised cultures similarly embracing yet another symbol of the western perspective, education, I would have to include this as another dimension of potential influence. Again, it could be perceived as both an advantage or a curse. Yet, irrespective of ones’ view, acknowledgment must be given that this could provide one more avenue for cultural conversion. “The process called education is based on the same assumptions and the same Eurocentric model. The focus is on faraway facts and figures, on “universal” knowledge. The books propagate information that is believed to be appropriate for the entire planet. But since the only knowledge that is universally applicable is far removed from the specific ecosystems and cultures, what children learn is essentially synthetic, divorced from its living context”(Norberg-Hodge:1996:37). Likewise, the content of technologically-communicated information is of a particular cultural bias. Therefore in the consideration of the inclusion of computer-based sessions within an educational institution, the degree of cultural relevance of the learning material/task has to be looked at.

Significance for QRITC?

So what significance do these issues have for an educational institution such as QRITC?  QRITC is educating Japanese students in Australia in an Australian vocational education course. I know that no mapping exercise has been done of the competencies to ascertain the degree of relevance between the Japanese home culture where the competencies are going to be finally applied and what is required in order to receive the Australian host culture’s qualification. I also know that whilst some information has been gathered to assist the student’s in their career options, (that is, the types of jobs available and the type of work they can expect) the actual assessable components are not related or linked to their living context. So what we have is a specific cultural group of Non-English Speaking Background (NESB) learners that are being taught within a foreign culture, via a foreign language, course content that has not necessarily any cultural relevance, via methodology that is not necessarily culturally relevant nor of a style with which the learner has experience with or aptitude for. The question that needs to be asked is whether this is in fact a negative attribute or could this be a positive attribute. Once again, I don’t feel it is necessarily the place to engage in this debate here, but merely to raise certain questions in order to attempt to ascertain the appropriate answer, given the specific context of QRITC. Such questions could be:

• Is there any alignment between the Australian Racing Industry practice and the Japanese Racing Industry practice?

• If not, is there any desire and/or need to be so?

• And if so, who has decided that this is the case and who if anyone at all within the Japanese home culture agrees there should be so?

• Is it a majority opinion or merely the opinion of a few in influential positions? (Only the controlling bodies?)

• Is there any real benefit for the students to learn a foreign language and experience a foreign culture, given most students return to their country immediately after the course?

These questions highlight certain areas of the learners’ home industry to be understood. Perhaps their racing industry structures; the power relationships within the respective governing authorities; the economic opportunities, both within the local industry and outside of the industry in other countries, both in terms of the nation and the individual. All of these could potentially influence the possible responses to the above questions one receives, and therefore alter the philosophical position an educational institution might adopt in justifying the courses’ cultural relevance.

QRITC didn’t carry out any strategic investigation on the market of the prospective international learners. However, I was told that they assumed two things:

            (1) that Japan was in need of world recognised generic training; and,

(2) QRITC delivered world recognised generic training.

Again certain questions arise. I would be asking:

• who ( person or nation) actually determined that the Japanese were in need of ‘world recognised generic training’; and,

• whether by following a generic world recognised training standard is of the most advantage for the ‘home’ culture;

• In addition, who determined that QRITC was a world recognised generic racing industry training body?

Other questions that come to mind are:

• If QRITC is of a world recognised standard, upon what basis was it determined? (Within what cultural context?)

• And finally, how aligned are the generic training courses to the learner group?

In the highly generic curriculum, the client is assumed to be of a specific stereotype. In the case of the curriculum being offered at QRITC, the stereotypical learner is: English speaking, moderate levels of literacy, both communicatively and technologically, and from a euro-centric 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. This raises the question as to whether generic solutions are appropriate, relevant, or in any way responsive to specific specialist areas. The major delivery challenge at QRITC was with the international learners and meeting the client’s cultural and language, or lack there of, needs. Given that the curriculum/program was not designed with the learner’s specific needs in mind, it should be of no surprise that the generic solution was not appropriate, congruent, compatible, or responsive to the specific needs of the Japanese learner group. The clients ranged from low to pre-intermediate proficiency levels of English, with fairly low levels of experience with International/western cultures.

I have already broached the issue of certain learners’ access potential to technology. At QRITC, learners had physical access to Information Technology. However, despite this, issues of access still dominated many conversations and discussions. It was pointed out that some individuals had quite varied educational backgrounds that had included diverse learning opportunities with regard to Information Technology. Some had not had the opportunity at school or home as others did, or the support and encouragement that they needed given the instructional or delivery style, or their particular learning style. Lankshear and Knobel draw two distinctions between types of learners who:

• those that have never received opportunities to learn information technology; and,

• those that are presented opportunities to receive but have not the level of computer literacy required(due to a number of reasons) to take advantage, full advantage of the learning opportunity. (Lankshear and Knobel:1997:133-163).

It was with this second point that was of considerable concern in the program at QRITC. The issue was the disparity of the learner group that was accepted within the program. Learners ranged from IT graduates, hobby-hackers to technophobics. This presented quite a few challenges, with the technically proficient soaring ahead and the technophobic slowly being turned off the computer-based instruction classes until their lack of attendance started to become an issue. The question that came to my mind was: To what degree was education for everyone? To what degree was it an inclusive curriculum? Coupled to this, was the fact that some of the instructors were as equally unskilled with the technology and/or inexperienced in the teaching of classes that had technology incorporated within them. I had to wonder what hope an inexperienced or even fearful learner would have of developing confidence and competence if the teacher also shared those traits.

Whilst the proficiency-level disparity amongst the learners is expected to remain as a major challenge of the information society as it has in other eras, I would hope that instead of viewing computer-based education as problematic, one should isolate the real issues and accept there are positive solutions. One solution is I believe very simple in concept but more challenging for institutions to commit to given their busy daily teaching schedules. However, if an institution has made a philosophical commitment to provide the effective delivery of quality contemporary education, then provision must be made in staff development programs to train the teachers to be able to provide ‘access’ for all those learners involved in their classes. It is only through ‘inclusive’ relevant programs, supported by trained, confident teachers, that we can achieve effective delivery of quality contemporary education.

Conclusion

As I have attempted to show in this essay, the integrating of computers into the classroom opens up many issues (Lankshear and Knobel:1997:133-163). I have introduced some of the issues: reform versus change; delivery style as being either instruction or discovery; the issue of globalisation- the western paradigm underlying it, the inclusive/exclusive nature of it and due to the rate of IT’s growth, the widening gap between the information haves and have nots. I believe I have also shown that the issues have a reciprocal impact on 3 main areas of educational delivery: curriculum; learner differences; and teacher training. I have focussed on the specific area of cultural differences of the learner group, highlighting the philosophical considerations an educational institution needs to be making in order to provide effective delivery of quality contemporary education. Then once a conscious decision has been made as to how an educational institution chooses to stage its’ delivery, positive solutions such as curriculum design and teacher training can be implemented. In order to ensure that technology does receive a fair trial in how it can enhance the instructional process, I believe all of these three areas therefore need serious consideration. QRITC has provided an excellent case study to exemplify the range of issues that can arise in what may seem a relatively simple exercise of integrating computers into the school program. And simple it may be. However, in order to ensure that the effective delivery of quality contemporary education is realised, holistic consideration of the educational delivery process and the learner group is recommended.

This blog series is planned to continue next month with International Education Part 2.

Bibliography

 Armstrong, T (1994) Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, ELT Journal, vol 58, pp125-129

Aronowitz, S and Giroux, H (1991) Postmodern Education:Politics, Culture and Social Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press

Aviram, A (1996) The Decline of the Modern Paradigm in Education, International Review of Education, vol 42(5), p421;pp 423 – 443

Blanton, LL (1992) A Holistic Approach to College ESL: Integrating Language and Content, ELT Journal, vol 46, pp285-293

Bradley, A (1998) Building a Better Teaching Force http://www.edweek.org/srepots/tc98/cs/cs6.htm 13/10/98

Bragaw, DH (1991) Priority: Curriculum. The Global Imperative and Its’ Metalanguage, Foreign Language Annuals, April, pp115-124

Brand, GA (1998) What research Says: training Teachers for Using Technology, Journal of Staff Development, Vol 10, No 1

Brown, H D (1994) Teaching Global Iinterdependence as a Subversive Activity, Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC

Browne, DL & Ritchie, DC (1991) Cognitive apprenticeship: A model of staff development for implementing technology in schools, Contemporary Education, Vol 63, No 1

Bush, MD and Terry, R M (1997) Technology Enhanced Language Learning, Illinois: National Textbook Company

Caldwell, B (1996) Global Trends and expectations for the further reform of schools, in Davies, B and Ellison, L (eds) School Leadership for the 21^st Century: A Competancy and Knowledge Approach, London:Routledge, pp243-257

Collins, C (1992) The problem of cross purposes: the challenge of our generation, in Anderson, J (ed) Education for a sustainable society, Paper presented at the 31^st National Conference of the Australian College of Education, Canberra, pp34-45

Cope, B and Kalantzis, M (1997) Productive diversity: stories of organisations in the era of civic pluralism and total globalisation, Product Diversity: A New, Australian Model for Work and Management, Australia:Pluto Press, pp128-129, 136-139, 189-198

Crandall, J (1993) Content-Centered Language Learning Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol 13, pp111-126

Cummins, J (1986) Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention Harvard Educational Review, vol 56, pp18-36

Erickson, F (1997) Culture in Society and in Educational Practices, in Banks, JA and McGee-Banks, CA (eds) Multicultural education: Issues and Perspectives, Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Fekete, J (ed) (1988) Life After Postmodernism: Essays on Value and Culture, London, MacMillan

Freeman, D Freeman, Y & Gonzales, G (1987) Success for ESP students: The Sunnyside sheltered English program, TESOL Quarterly, vol 21, pp361-67

Freire, P (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Herder and Herder.

Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple intelligences: The Theory in Practice, New York: Basic Books

Gardner, H (1994) Teaching for understanding –within a cross disciplines, Education Leadership, Vol 1, No 5

Goldberg, DT (1994) Introduction: Multicultural conditions, in Goldberg, DT Multiculturalism: A critical reader, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers

Grant, CA and Sleeter, CE (1986) Education Equity: Education That Is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist, Journal of Education Equity and Leadership, vol 6, pp105-118

Hough, M and Paine, J (1997) The New Focus Of Learning: Creating Quality Learning Communities, Melbourne:Macmillan, pp69 –85

Kelly, P Forthcoming Internationalising the Curriculum: for Profit or the Planet?, in Inayatullah S and Gidley J (eds) (2000) The University of Transformation: Global Perspectives on the Futures of the University, Westport, Ct:Praeger, pp1-12

Knoebel M, and Lankshear, C (1994) Learning Genres:Prospects For Empowerment, QUT:Brisbane

Ladson-Billings, G (1995) But that’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Theory into Practice, vol 34(3), pp159 – 165

Lankshear, C and Knoebel, M (1997) Literacies, texts and difference in the Electronic Age, in Lankshear, C with Lee, JP Knoebel, M and Searle, C Changing Literacies, Buckingham: Open University Press, pp 133-163

Lawton, M (1998) Computers have little use without Teacher Training, Study Says http://www.edweek.org/htbin/fastweb?getdoc+view4+ew1997+1215+2+wAA13/10/98

Leadership image courtesy of  Leadership Accessed 15th October 2013

Learning Philosophy image courtesy of:  Learning  Accessed 15th October 2013

Learning Theories image courtesy of:  Learning Theory v6_Millwood.D2.2.1.20130430 Accessed 15th October 2013

Lewis T (1995) From Manual training to Technology Training, in Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol 27, no 6, pp621 – 645

Mastermann, L (1992) The case for television studies, in Alvarado, M and Boyd-Barret, O (eds) Media Education: An Introduction, London:The British Film Institute and the Open University, pp45-51

McCarthy, C. and Crichlow, C 1993 Race, Identity and Representation in Education. New York: Routledge

Merryfield, MM (1993) Reflective Practice In Global Education Strategies For Teacher Educators, Theory into Practice, vol32, pp27-32

Merryfield, MM (1994) Teacher education in global and international education. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications

Myers, I & McCaulley, K (1985) Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myer – Briggs Type Indicator, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press

NCATE, (1998) What Every Teacher Needs To Know About Computers/Technology, http://remcen.ehhs.cmich.edu/ele_sed580/what_to_know.html, 9/09/98

Norberg-Hodge, H 1996 The pressure to modernise and globalize, in Mander, J and Goldsmith E (eds) The Case Against the Global Economy, and for a Turn Towards the Local, San Francisco: Sierra Club, pp33-45

Nunan, D 1991 Syllabus Design UK:OUP

Nunan, D 1985 Toward a Collaborative Approach to Curriculum Development:A Case Study, TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol 23, No 1, pp25

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training 1995 The Common Curriculum: Policies and Outcomes, Grades 1-9, Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training

Owen, M 1992 A Teacher Centre Model of Development in the Educational Use of Computers, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, vol 1, no 1, pp127- 138

Pai, Young 1990 Cultural Foundations of Learning, Merrill: New York

Parkinson, L and O’Sullivan, K 1990 Negotiating The Learner Centered Curriculum, in Brindley,G. (ed) 1990 The Second Language Curriculum In Action, Sydney:NCELT

Persky, SE (1990) What contributes to teacher development in technology, Educational Research, vol 30, no 4

Preston, N and Symes, C (1992) Schools and Classrooms: A Cultural Studies Analysis of Education, Melbourne: Longman Chesire

Ritchie, M (1996) Cross-border organising, in Mander, J and Goldsmith E (eds) The Case Against the Global Economy, and for a Turn Towards the Local, San Francisco: Sierra Club, pp 494-500

Queensland Racing image courtesy of Queensland Racing  Accessed 15th October 2013

Ritchie, SD and Davidson, GV (1994) Attitudes towards Integrating Computers into the Classroom: What parents, teachers and Students report, Journal of Computing, vol 5, no 1

Ross, T and Bailey, G (1997) Technology Based Learning, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education

Schoales, D (1998) First Things First: Training the Teachers, in Berger, Z.L and Collins, M. (eds) Wired Together: The Online Classroom in K-12, vol 3, Teacher Education and Professional Development, New Jersey :Hampton Press Inc

Selfe,C (1998) Technology and Literacy: A story about the perils of not paying attention, CCCC/98 Keynote Address, http://www.ncte.org/forums/selfe/ , 13/10/98

Sessoms, I (1994) A Coneptual Model of Infusing Multicultural Curriculum In Various Academic Disciplines in Higher Education, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association Multicultural Education, Detroit

Sheingold, K (1990) Restructuring for learning with technology: the potential for synergy. In Sheingold, K and Tucker, MS (eds) Restructuring for the learning with technolog, New York: Centre for Technology in Education

Sherwood, C (1993) Australian Experiences with the Effective Classroom Integration of Information Technology : implications for teacher education, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, vol 2, no 2, pp167-180

Students image courtesy of  Curriculum Design  Accessed 15th October 2013

Synott, J (1992) Global change and new contexts of Australian education, in Lovat, TJ (ed) Sociology for Teachers, Australia:Social Science Press, pp190-199

Taylor, S Rizvi, F Lingard, B and Henry, M (1997) Globalisation, the state and education policy making, Educational Policy and the Politics of Change, London:Routledge, pp54-77

Technology in Learning image courtesy of:  Technology  Accessed 15th October 2013

Thornburg, D (1992) Edutrends 2010: Restructuring, Technology, and the Future, USA: Starsong Publications

Troyer, M (1988) Issues and problems in teacher computer literacy, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, vol 21, pp141-154

Tye, KA & Kniep, WM (1991) Global education around the world, Educational Leadership, vol 48, pp47-49

Vale, D Scarino, A and McKay, P (1996) Pocket ALL, SA:Hyde Park Press

Vockell, EL Jancich, H Sweeney, J (1994) What Makes Teachers Use Computers, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, vol 2, no 2 , pp107-117

Wahlstrom, MA & Clarken, RH (1992) Preparing Teachers For Education That Is Multicultural and Global, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco

Wallerstein, N (1983) Language and Culture in Conflict: Problem-Posing in the ESL Classroom, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Willinsky, J (1994) After 1492-1992:a post-colonial supplement for the Canadian curriculum, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol 26(6), pp613-629

Wright, P (1993) Teaching Teachers about Computers, Journal of Information Technology and Teacher Education, vol 2, no 1, pp37-52

– ©David L Page 28/10/1998

– updated ©David L Page 16/10/2013

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.