UPLOADING instructions.
- Go to here and make a new post entry
- Upload by clicking on the “add Media” icon which below the title box.
- Choose “upload files” and choose your file from your computer
- Click “Insert into Post”
- KEY STEP: Under categories (on the right) check Concept Map Drop Box and choose where you want it to post (e.g. final Cmap, or Final HDLT)
- Add a title to your post
- Click “publish” (on the top right)
18 Responses to Social Contexts of Learning
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Learning is not done in isolation; it is situated in where we live and the culture in which we are immersed. In this week’s article, Li looks at how these social contexts can be analysed to obtain a broader view of what influences learning. The bulk of the literature review is based on the research of Margaret Archer. Archer’s theories regarding “three orders of reality” and “personal identity” are useful because they look at concerns and motivators in addition to the immediate learning environment, whether it uses technology or not.
My initial thought was that the results of this research couldn’t be generalized to my situation with a Grade 5/6 class in an elementary school, since the participants were taking a part-time online bachelor’s degree course. However, the purpose of the research was to validate Archer’s theoretical approach, which could be applied widely. It reminded me of the UBC Model of Nursing, a systems approach to nursing assessment that considered all of a patient’s (or client’s) systems: reparative, excretory, achieving, ingestive, protective, affective, satiative, ego-valuative, and respiratory. This was a rather cumbersome approach which was tedious to learn and apply, but it did train me to look at the whole person and consider what might affect their well-being. Archer’s approach is to take the three learning theory perspectives of behaviourism, cognitivism, and socioculturism and merge them into one framework to get a more complete picture of human learning. How a person chooses to respond to the communication between the domains of natural, practical and social relations contributes to the development of personal identity, which is a constructivist process. This also reminded me of the First People’s Principles of Learning, specifically: learning is holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational (focused on connectedness, on reciprocal relationships, and a sense of place); and learning requires exploration of one’s identity. Archer’s framework and theories tie in nicely with the updated curriculum and its move to more constructivist ways of knowing.
What motivates adults is different from what motivates children. However, most learners prefer that their learning is relevant to what is going on in their life in the present. Dewey (1897) advocated this as well; “Only through the continual and sympathetic observation of childhood’s interests can the adult enter into the child’s life and see what it is ready for, and upon what material it could work most readily and fruitfully.” This was an interesting article because it explored how multimodal methods could allow learners to better manage the constraints in their lives (family, work, schedules) and how other factors (interest in the subject, relevance to career, familiarity with hardware or software) could impact motivation or mastery.
Resources
BC Ministry of Education. First Peoples Principles of Learning. Retrieved from https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/abed/principles_of_learning.pdf
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80.Reprinted or excerpted in: Flinders, D., & Thornton, S. J. (2004).The curriculum studies reader (2nd Ed.) New York NY: Routledge.
UBC School of Nursing. Assessment Framework for Nursing Practice. Retrieved from https://nursing.ubc.ca/files/documents/policies/Assessment%20Framework%202004_1.pdf
Li attempts to “look beyond learning” and more towards a “bigger picture of how learning intervenes in other dimensions of social life and how other contexts come into play in learning settings” (p.280). When it comes to educational technology, most educators are concerned with the immediate impact and rewards that their students may receive while using the item. Li states “more attention is drawn to immediate learning settings within which learners interact with technology rather than other dimensions of their life and wider social contexts of technology use” (p.280). Simply put, the influence of technology cannot be considered to be a straightforward, closed system. According to Li (p.281), the complex relationship between technology and learning needs to be considered at each of the following three levels:
– Micro – immediate learning environment
– Meso – educational institution
– Macro – wider cultural, societal, political and economic contexts
Li uses Margret Archer’s (2000) “three order reality,” the consequent three forms of knowledge and her theorization of personal identity to detail the various elements that influence (e-)learning. The three orders of reality are:
– the natural –directly through our senses and our body (embodied knowledge)
– the practical – through our use of material artefacts such as tool and technologies
(practical knowledge)
– the social – through symbolic means ex. Language (discursive knowledge)
Throughout Li’s experimental study of university students in China and his examination of Archer’s theories, he argues that the “real” and “virtual” worlds of e-learners should not be considered separate entities. They will always be interconnected and influence each other. In my position as a technology consultant, it is important for me to remind teachers with which I am working that the technology is just a tool or instrument, and that the real power is when we can use it as a medium to make learning purposeful and meaningful for each student. From my experience thus far, it seems that most teachers are cognizant of the different experiences and backgrounds of the their students. How educators will use iPads to have students display their culture in Haida Gwaii may or may not differ than how educators will use them in Surrey. I am looking forward to observing how educators and students will value the same type of technology and subsequently use it in different and unique ways throughout British Columbia.
Li’s article examines the implementation of technology in educational settings and the need to ‘look beyond learning’ with its implementation. It highlights the importance of examining the wider social contexts within which technology is used for learning: the micro-level (immediate learning environment), the meso-level (educational institutions), and the macro-level (wider cultural, societal, political and economic contexts). These levels cannot be examined in isolation as they are interconnected. They need to be simultaneously examined in order gain a better understanding of the contexts in which educational technology is used. This critical realist perspective provides a more complete picture of what is taking place as opposed to individually examining each level as separate entities.
The article uses Archer’s ‘three orders of reality’ and ‘personal identity’ to examine the contexts of learning and technology in relation to the ‘real world.’ According to Archer’s theory, we simultaneously live our lives in the natural, practical, and social orders of reality. These orders manifest in three forms of knowledge: embodied, practical, and discursive. Moreover, ‘personal identity’ is “how we uniquely and reflexively define ourselves by virtue of our constellations of concerns about the world” (pg. 284). These identities are not stagnant or fixed; they may change and be reconstructed as our experiences change. It is important to examine e-learning within the context of these ‘three orders of reality’ and ‘personal identity’ in order to understand the wider contexts that influence learning experiences.
The study in this article examines a “part-time online Bachelor degree programme in a range of subjects, designed and hosted by a Chinese university” (p. 284). It examines the learning experiences of the students in relation to the ‘wholeness’ of their being in the interactions between the ‘three orders of reality’ and the impact on and from their ‘personal identities.’
Personally, I relate to the concerns, motivations and experiences described by the students in this study. I applied for this MEd program because I have increasingly been feeling a digital disconnect between my students and I. I knew I had to incorporate digital technology into my teaching practice, but I did not know how to do so in an impactful manner. My motivations for enrolling into this program are related to my teaching career. I believe I can be a better teacher and do service to my students by using technology they are familiar with. Also, I was raised highly valuing education. My immigrant parents have worked very hard and sacrificed a lot in order for my siblings and I to purse and complete our post-secondary studies. Upon completion of this program, I will be the first female in my family to complete a graduate degree. This accomplishment will be as much parents’ as it will be mine. They are incredibly proud that I am completing my Masters. However, becoming a student again has been a difficult transition for me. I am no longer a single woman in my early twenties who was a full-time student, as I was when I completed by BA and BEd degrees. I am now in my early thirties, married, a mother of two young children, and a secondary school teacher. I am constantly having to balance my school load with my other professional and personal commitments. I have no prior experience in e-learning; however, I am using a mixed methods approach in my classes this year as a part of my teacher inquiry. I have introduced blogging as an extension of my classroom activities. The activities we do on the blog are related to the world around them. It provides them with opportunities to engage with content in a collaborative manner while also reflecting on their own ‘personal identities’ to enhance and enrich their learning experiences. I agree with Li that e-learning does not take place in an isolated virtual world; it influences and is influenced by the ‘real world.’ I believe that all learning needs to connected to the ‘real world’ in order for students to construct meaningful knowledge and have authentic learning experiences. This course will be my first use of the Blackboard platform. I am looking forward to using this platform for our upcoming seminars.
Nicely written Iren. Great job summarizing the key points of the article at the beginning of your response.
Thanks, Robyn! 🙂 Greatly appreciate the positive feedback!
This week’s reading made me think about the importance of learning in a social context rather than in isolation. The case study identified several factors which impacted student motivation and engagement (both positively and negatively) in learning during their part-time online Bachelor’s program. This made me consider learning both within my classroom, as well as my own personal learning (specifically over the past two years in the master’s program). Within the context of my own learning, as I sit and read the weekly articles in isolation, I understand how much of learning relies on the social construct. The discussion with classmates, relevant hands-on activities, and elaborative lecture that we experience by meeting face to face each week, allows for my learning to be enhanced. Collaboration and communication is an essential cornerstone of BC’s revised curriculum. Research shows that learning (and working) with others is more beneficial than learning in isolation. In the classroom (or in the context of an online course), we need learners to feel connected to others in order for the learning to be meaningful. The ability to confirm our understanding with the thoughts of others is powerful in learning. We need to ensure that we are providing the opportunities for students to feel safe and connected to what they are learning, by allowing them to construct knowledge based on their past experiences as well as in collaboration with others.
Another aspect of this article that I found interesting, was the discussion that students are motivated by work or career relevance. The article argued that the more relevance the course had to the betterment of the individual in their work or career, the more likely they were to enjoy the course and find the material relevant. In my experience, I don’t necessarily agree that interest or enjoyment of a course is directly related to how much I think it will improve my career. However, I think (with all learning), the more relevant the subject, the more engaged the learner will be. I have certainly connected with some courses more deeply in DLC3 than others. When I consider the similarities between the courses that have had the greatest impact, they all have contained discussions about content that I find deeply relevant to my teaching practice; and are somewhat thought provoking. While they generally required the most work, I also enjoyed the work because of the connection to what I do everyday.
My critique of the article is that I found it long and disjointed in places. It was difficult for me to follow the theoretical reasoning at the beginning of the article, and then link it to the practical case study. However, the case study did examine many issues relevant to learners:
– work or career relevance
– application of knowledge as related to ‘real world’ practice
– flexibility of multi modal forms of information (textbooks, audio/video, etc.)
– ability to connect with learning at times that were personally appropriate to the individual*
*refer to last week’s class discussion about how school is the one place students are expected to be and learn at the same time
In Li’s paper on the Natural Practical and Social Contexts of e-Learning, it is stated that too much attention is paid on the “immediate learning settings within which learners interact with technology” (pg. 280). Li states that the relationship between technology and learning not only takes place on this level, the micro-level, but also on the meso level (educational institutions), and the macro-level (wider cultural, social, political, and economic contexts). I agree that the relationship between technology and learning is a complex one, one that I have yet to figure out. One of the reasons why I enrolled in this program was in hopes of understanding this relationship better.
Li conducted a study within a part-time online Bachelor degree programme in a Chinese University. The subjects in this study reported feeling “anxiety, isolation, frustration, excitement, contentment, disappointment and guilt” during the learning process (pg. 287). I connected with this statement as these are many feelings that I have experienced when working with technology. It also makes me wonder if my students ever feel like this. My inquiry project centers on the use of iPads and their ability to document and assess student learning. Therefore, my students are on the iPads quite often. Sometimes I find myself unable to help them solve technical problems on the iPad since it is not a tool that I am super comfortable with. Furthermore, my school district makes it increasingly difficult to use technology in the classroom. I do not have the authority to download apps onto the iPad. When I request for apps to be added, it can take weeks or even months for the IT department to respond. The lack of support I receive from the school district level causes me to experience many of the feelings that the subjects in Li’s study also experienced. I think this article has caused me to think about whether it would be worth it to discuss with my students how they are feeling about using technology in relation to their learning.
In this weeks article Li examines the relationship between the learner’s immediate learning environment and the institutional and socio-cultural contexts that exist within it. The introduction of e-learning has provided new learning opportunities but it cannot exist in an isolated context separate from the influence of day to day life. According to Li, “there is no single factor (such as educational technology in this case) that can be considered to exert its influence in any straightforward way as if in a closed system; it must be considered together with factors from other contextual domains” (p. 281). Li adopts Archer’s “three orders of reality” and “personal identity” as a guide and studies how e-learning does (or doesn’t) impact the overall learning of Bachelor degree students in China. I agree with Li that learning is influenced by many factors and real world bigger picture contexts must be taken into account when examining how people learn.
I connected with Archers theory of “personal identity” and how it relates to my current learning experience. As a teacher and now student, I’ve experienced how technology has inundated my life and society in general over the last five years. However, my decision to begin my masters was not influenced by technology initially. It was an intrinsic motivation to enhance my career and provide more opportunities to go beyond teaching. I was driven to increase my qualifications in order to open more doors in my career. After reading this article, I can see how the macro-social and cultural contexts have influenced my learning.
The DLC program allowed me to combine one of my interests, technology, with a masters program. I feel fortunate that as a learner I am genuinely interested in what I am studying and the content and material can be directly applied to my teaching practice. In Li’s study many participants commented on how the course material was not interesting or useful but they continued in the program anyway.
Using Archer’s “three orders of reality” and “personal identity”, Li’s study does raise some valid points about how learning takes place and the role social and cultural contexts play in shaping why people learn.
Li begins the article with outlining the importance of looking at all three elements, the micro (immediate learning environment), the mesa (educational institutions) and the macro (cultural, societal, political and economic factors) when examining learners’ interactions with technology. Li also gives an explanation and breakdown of Archer’s notion of the three orders of reality which are the natural, the practical and the social. I found the graphic with the Venn diagram difficult to decipher the connections amongst the three, however I did appreciate the metaphor of a person’s encounter with deep water as it helped me to contextualize these abstract orders. It clearly demonstrated how the natural, practical and social orders play roles in learning and our formation of knowledge and understanding. Li goes on to elaborate on Archer’s three orders by explaining that embodied knowledge is acquired through out interactions with the natural world, practical knowledge is seen as procedural and an extension of our bodily power and discursive knowledge is developed through a propositional culture.
As I read this article I found it difficult to make the connection to the three orders of reality in relation to the case study of adult learners except when it was made explicit with the table on p. 288. It gives examples of how “the different orders of reality can affect the subject by shaping the situations and supplying constraints and enablements in relation to the subjects’ projects”. Time constraints are seen as the natural order, technological constraints are seen as the practical order and work-related constraints are seen as the social order. I personally really related to the challenges the adult learners were facing in this case-study of trying to work full-time and trying to acquire a university degree. While I am not in the exact same position as them, I empathize with the challenges of working full-time, studying and completing school-work and trying to maintain a personal life as I try to complete this program. Learning is not happening in a vacuum or in isolation, but is interconnected with and affected by all of the social and environmental factors in my life.
The connection to the use of technology I also found interesting as Li states “the degree of importance individuals attached to technology in facilitating their learning varied” (p. 288). This connects back to the idea of the macro context of e-learning. As adult learners we all bring different levels of comfort and experience and histories when it comes to technology and this affects how we decide to or choose to work with it in the learning context. This also pertains to our students as they all come from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds and their experiences with technology will differ. How they engage with the technologies may not be what the teacher or the creator of the technology intended, but it will be what they see as valuable to help them and “meet their own needs and fit into their own situations” (p. 289).
I think that the major objective of this article was to discuss the theory around the contexts for learning using educational technology and the milieu that effect the learning process from a critical realistic perspective. The study described in the latter part of the article shows the application of these theories on a real scenario in which students at a Chinese university are put in an e-learning situation, effected on micro, meso, and macro levels of learning.
Li’s begins with the three factors effecting learning in the immediate learning environment (micro), the educational institutions (meso) and the larger socio-cultural, economic and political factors. The discussion of personal identity brought clarity to the interactions between the orders of reality identified by Archer and educational psychology theories we have been learning about in class. I found this section to be interesting and very relevant to what we have been discussing in class and relating to a new ontological framework outlined by Archer.
“Thus, different learning approaches are advocated in each: learning through stimulus–response conditioning in the behaviourist approach; learning by discovery and active construction of ideas through exploration, experimentation, receiving feedback and adapting oneself accordingly in the cognitive constructivist approach; and, in the socioculturalist approach, learning with the support of dialogue in the process of collaborative activity and through participation in communities of practice.” (pg. 284)
I found the diagram to be somewhat helpful in illustrating the relationships between the orders of reality (pg. 282), although I’m not sure what is meant by the term liabilities in this context (that’s the accounting teacher in me…). I think it’s to counter “potentialities”? I think that needed to be described in more clarity.
The interrelationship of the natural, practical and social orders of reality were made clear with the description of the forms of knowledge gained in these orders: “what we can learn to do in nature (embodied knowledge), the skills we can acquire in practice (practical knowledge), and the propositional elaborations we can make in the social order (discursive knowledge)” (pg. 283).
I found the example of an encounter with deep water to contextualize the meaning of these orders in a very clear way. I started to extend the analogy of drowning and floating to technology use in the classroom and the comfort levels of my students with these tools and technologies. I often wonder if my refugee students are drowning in tech and if a high school classroom is really an appropriate learning environment if they have been out of the schooling system for years and/or have never used technology before in their lives. In my personal experience, I would argue that my refugee students may be better served for a year in an alternate setting or program, as the micro, meso and macro environments they have entered into is a complete culture shock. They don’t understand the implications of their digital footprint and perhaps lack the knowledge, self-control, and foresight to appreciate the longevity and damage that interacting inappropriately online can cause.
I was a bit confused about the inclusion of the emotional aspect towards the end of the article. While I absolutely agree that emotions play into the learning process, how one feels about the content and their relation to it in knowledge construction, however, it seems disjointed from the rest of the article. In the discussion of theory section, Li did not make mention of emotions as part of the construction of personal identity. I think that it would have been best included in the earlier sections of the article to provide context for inclusion later on.
Personally, I related to the student diaries under striking the balance amongst different commitments. Student Diary 3: 4-12 really got to me in particular. I find that every concept I’m learning in this program comes from hard fought reading and concentration, running on lack of sleep and at the expense of time with my daughter. I signed up for this, I know. The program requirements are different than I had anticipated in terms of what our end product would be, so I’m a bit disappointed. But as the students said in the diaries, they were doing this to improve their lives, and the lives of their families. I try to keep that in mind as well, continuing on this journey. Nothing worth having is easy.
This week, we learned about the different contexts of e-learning through Li’s article that introduces Archer’s “three orders of reality” framework. Essentially, Li argued that there are so many factors that can influence learning because our world is an open-system, and that these factors come from what she referred to as “contextual domains”. She classified these contexts into three different levels or scopes: micro (the immediate learning environment), meso (within the educational institution), and macro (cultural, social, economic, and political settings). At first, I didn’t quite understand how Li suggested we should take into account how these levels of contexts come into play with each other, but after reflecting on my experience as I changed to a new school this year it became a little more clear for me. As an educator who is passionate about incorporating technology in the classroom (micro-level), I did not have much success because I did not take into account the fact that my school (meso-level) was not well-equipped for me to do so. In fact, integrating technology was not considered a priority at the school. I also did not realize how many of my students could not afford to bring personal learning devices such as laptops and tablets because of financial reasons (macro-level). However, at my new school this year, I was able to have much more success. The school embraces the integration of technology in learning and is able to invest money into equipment, and almost all of my students are more affluent that each of them are able to come to school ready to learn on their own laptops.
Li also critically argued that technology cannot be relied upon as the key contributor in e-learning. She states that “[t]he accessibility of information does not of itself enable the gaining of knowledge by learners, and the adoption of any ICT tools for communication in e-learning courses does not guarantee that adequate interaction and communication occur in the learning process” (p.283-284). This really resonated with our class discussions the past two weeks in regards to whether using the Kinect can really achieve active learning, or whether learning really took place when Sugata Mitra put groups of students in front of computers in an attempt to find out whether the students could co-construct knowledge on their own.
This is where the introduction of Archer’s framework on the natural, practical, and social contexts (or “orders of reality”) of learning comes in. Within this framework lie three different forms of knowledge – embodied, practical, and discursive – that are each associated with each context. Li also mentioned the concept of personal identity which is formed through an individual’s interactions with these contexts and through self-reflections on the associated knowledge one has in order to determine and prioritize one’s learning concerns. Together with the empirical study, she is suggesting that when educators plan courses and curriculum with (or without) technology, we must be aware that everything is intertwined and we need to plan carefully in order to provide learning that is meaningful to our students. For instance, even though most of my students already know how to interact with their learning devices in a variety of ways (embodied knowledge), I need to think about the potential frustrations my students might have with their devices due to a lack of practical knowledge such as not knowing how to connect to the school’s WiFi or how to troubleshoot for themselves if their devices are not working properly. I also need to consider limitations of any specific technology use so that it does not hinder my students’ acquisition of content (discursive) knowledge.
All in all, aside from the fact that it was a little difficult to follow Li’s points at the beginning of her paper, I find that it really connected to my experience with ed. tech, especially after the introduction of Archer’s framework and her empirical study example.
When reading the article “Natural, practical and social contexts of e-learning: a critical realist account for learning and technology” by Z. Li I found that I had to read and reread several parts of the article to really understand what Li was trying to say. At times, Li relied on reader knowledge to know what theory or concept Li was talking about and did not provide enough practical examples to really clarify the ideas presented. The analogy to water when presenting Archer’s ‘three order reality’ was helpful as I could visual how the three orders, natural, practical and social could be applied.
One of the concepts that Li was arguing was the significance of context in influencing the learning process. A learner’s personal identity influences a learner’s motivation, reasons and intentions in coming to learn. I would agree with the statement as I see students’ personal identity playing an important role in learning. Another point I found interesting was the statement “technologies are used in ways unanticipated by their inventors and designers, and users can often adapt, abandon and alter properties of certain technologies to suit their own needs or circumstances.” (p.283). We see this often in the classroom where students use technologies to suit their one needs. For example, I had a student use Haiku Deck to create the argument of why he should be allowed more video game time instead of using the software to present his knowledge of ancient Egyptian culture.
This article had me reflecting on an area I have been examining over the past year which is online learning. What motivates students to opt for online courses or home learner programs that have e-learning as part of their course work? Li states in her article the reasons that the student in her case study chose the course had to with work or career related relevance. Why did my children choose online courses over face to face courses? In both cases it was internal factors that drove their decisions (incompatibility with the face to face teacher and the option to complete a course over the summer). I have asked grade 11 and 12 students about their experience taking an online course through various institutes including my own children who have taken four classes online. Their response was similar to what I heard from other students. “If you want to get a good mark take the course online. If you want to learn the content take the course in class.” But why is this? Is it because students are not getting the social interactions that come with face to face learning or is it because the courses online are flawed and not comprehensive enough? Li shared some of the Chinese students’ frustrations such as technical problems, badly delivered teaching and inability to reach the teacher. As the course developed students became disenfranchised with their studies. These same frustrations were felt by the students I talked to. In particular students reported frustration with not being able to contact their teacher and not with not completely understanding the assignment. Further analysis of the actual courses online would need to be done while comparing those courses and their content with face to face classes.
Li talks about how different theories have different learning approaches that could be incorporated such as learning through stimulus response conditioning, learning by discovery and active construction of ideas through exploration, experimentation, receiving feedback and adapting oneself (p. 284). Li quotes Selwyn as claiming the socially collaborative nature of learning has been the focus of research on e-learning. When I reflect on the grade 11 and 12 courses taken by my children I would say the courses were not of a socially collaborative nature but of a more read, digest, answer questions nature. Perhaps the authors of online courses need to reexamine their course delivery and content to see if there is a way of offering collaboration, exploration, discovery, and experimentation while also looking at the social context of e-learning.
The concept of the social context in e-learning is a fascinating concept; however, I found the article by Li difficult to read and difficult to apply to my own teaching practice. I would like to read more articles on this subject to get a better understanding of the theories that were presented.
This week’s reading comes at a good time as I am about to be part of a sub-committee at my school regarding the usage of personal devises at the school. Some teachers were frustrated with the student’s use of their phones in the school and wanted to bring a motion at the staff committee meeting that all phones or electronic devices should be banned between on the school grounds. “(…) more attention is drawn to immediate learning settings within which learners interact with technology rather than other dimensions of their life and wider social contexts of technology use “ (Selwyn, 2010) The use of technology is a second nature to our students. Since they have grown with it, they are accustomed to it and it can be very helpful learning tools. I definitely think to ban the electronic devices would arm them in the long run as “we live, and must live, simultaneously in the natural, practical and social orders’ (Archer, 2000, p. 9).
The reason why I make connections with the current situation at my school and the reading is that Li’s article indirectly brings many examples of why we should integrate the use of personal devices at a young age through her arguments about looking “beyond the learning”. As an adult, a teacher, a spouse, an artist, a son, a grad student, my personal device is an extension of myself as throughout the day, it puts the hat of the many roles I play and the roles I could be playing at the same time. Through school, I have learned discipline and I am organized enough to know when to put the hat of the teacher, the learner and the spouse. I can feel the behaviourist approach I have been taught at school through my learning process as I need to be part of a community of practice. I see my device as linking all the communities I’m part of, as a learner and as a professional. These communities are what motivates me to be self-disciplined. “This debate over context in learning echoes strongly one of the central problems in socio-logical theory: the relationship between individual and society, structure, and agency.” Li says. I do feel we can learn without being in class. As Li mentioned, we can google pretty much anything and learn from online tutorials. We can also be part of online learning communities and its members can be from all around the world. The accessibility of information does not of itself enable the gaining of knowledge by learners, and the adoption of any ICT tools for communication in e-learning courses does not guarantee that adequate interaction and communication occur in the learning process.” Li says. There is still this need of community and human interaction that drives your learning. I see my students interacting on Classcraft forums, or having a “school” folder on their iPads where they store the classroom-related apps. Their devices become an extension of self that helps create that Li calls their personal identity.But the situations in our schools is that due to funding, there isn’t the possibility to provide technology for all students but where I teach, most students can afford technologies that are equal to what’s offered in school or better.
I understand where Li is coming from with the Three orders of reality but I feel the realities are totally disconnected. On one hand, we have learners who want instant gratification by learning online with no social contexts or drive. We have children/teens/young adults who are extremely social and creative on social media but are extremely quiet in classrooms, following a generic model. And, we have young workers who are struggling with work etiquette as they do not know when to not be on their personal devices. It is interesting to read that anxiety, isolation, frustration,excitement, contentment, disappointment and guilt are emotions learners go through during their e-learning process, especially since we are looking at a generation that is extremely social. Is this because they are not part of a community? Or because they can’t join their “three orders of reality”?
Brief, to get back to my devices in the classroom intro. I feel that to be able to use personal devices will support the murge or all orders of reality. I have learned to be on time and work ethics at school and it transmitted into my workplace. As devices are part of our reality, I can’t see why we couldn’t educate kids on how to use their devices properly. To ban them would also have an effect of their attitude towards online learning. or we would have a status-quo of having students needing instant gratification. Maybe there would be a stronger sense of community and a greater understanding of learning in this digital age if digital tools could be an extension of all the roles our students play everyday (student, son, daughter, friend, etc) as they are for their teachers.
Li identifies and discusses in his article the relationships between technology and learning, but also the connections of social contexts and learning. Learning does not only take place within the actual course taken or educational institute, but also intervenes in the social life and contexts of the learner. He states the three levels that highlight the ‘complex relationship between technology and learning’ (p. 280) which are the micro-level (immediate learning environment), the meso-level (educational institutions), and the macro-level (wider cultural, societal, political, and economic contexts). The three levels are intertwined and inseparable as its existence is both physical and social. The article introduces Margaret Archer’s ‘three orders of reality’ (natural, practical, and social order) and ‘personal identity’ which demonstrates analysis of learning whether technology is integrated or not.
When the internet was invented, it’s intentions or limits were unclear and over the years, the options of e-learning has increased immensely. In the article, the case study for the online Bachelor degree program demonstrated the enthusiasm, motivation, frustration, and regrets of the learners. Digital devices and access to technology can create motivation and enthusiasm, however, the social context is just as important. Learning does not sit independently at the micro-level, but also engages at the meso and macro-level. I feel the article did not give a full overview of the contexts and support offered by the professors and educational institute. It was difficult to understand the level of frustration and the time given in waiting for the response from the professors.
As I continue to work with my students in the classroom, creating hands-on activities in a fun and digital environment, I am constantly aware of the factors of motivation and enthusiasm. I always ask myself: How can I keep the students engaged? What kind of activity would promote further inquiry and questioning? What would interest the students? In the classroom, I often integrate technology but students rely on each other as well as on the educator for malfunctions, support, and advise, otherwise they would too feel anxious, frustrated, and annoyed as some of the learners in the case study did. Therefore, the context within which they learn, is crucial.
When I chose this masters course, I was intrigued with the connection to educators. I am still motivated and enthusiastic with this program but this could be because it is connected to my career and I am “aspired to learn something ‘useful’ to (my) current work or future career” (p.285). The connection and prior knowledge to my profession gives me the sense of security and understanding as well as being able to rely on my colleagues and professors. However, there have been times when I have felt isolated, anxious, and frustrated when technology does not work as planned and I am sure the feelings have been mutual for the students in my class or for my colleagues in DLC3 Cohort.
In the Natural, Practical and Social contexts of e-learning, Li starts off by spending a large part of her paper talking about Archer’s (1995) critical realism and orders of reality.
She talks about the three forms of knowledge that can be seen in nature: embodied, practical and discursive (Li, 2013, p. 282). When one looks at the definitions of these forms of knowledge it seems logical that the practical knowledge is the one that is often lacking as it requires much practice to acquire. This applies to technology, not only in the e-learning that Li researched, but in every school where technology is in use. Teachers understand the purpose of the technology in as much as it should make tasks faster and more repeatable, and how technology changes the way we live our lives everyday. This is technology from an embodied and discursive knowledge point of view. The practical knowledge is what is often missing when technology gets to the students in the final stage of delivery. “The actual use of technology is therefore strongly influenced by the users’ understanding of their properties and functionality” (Li, 2013, p. 283).
Once Li starts talking about the comments from the students in the e-learning course, it becomes clear that motivation, and not the learning style, is the key to learning for these students. Comments from the students confirm that improved qualifications were the number one reason for taking the course, and that personal interest in the area was also a factor to some degree. What I found most interesting in these comments was the focus on the degree to which personal interest in the course content motivated the learning of the students. I find it strange that comments supporting the personal interest were not viewed as comments that help the students deal with cognitive dissonance in the fact that they are really there for the qualifications and the increased financial levels that follow. I have always found it interesting that people will make their situations sound better so that they feel decreased dissonance about a less than optimal situation. Evidence of these feelings can be found in the quote by Li, “Work relevance in the courses seemed to stimulate the learners’ interest and motivation, and they expressed a strong wish to see much greater emphasis placed on the application of knowledge to the “real world” practice in which they already had significant experience” (p. 285)
It also makes me think about my own research with my class and how the comments that I may receive from my students may not be totally truthful in as much as they may be made to follow social norms of work ethic or to make me, as their teacher, happy with their responses
The section of Li’s article that I was able to connect with the most is the section on Personal Identity. Li says “personal identity is how we uniquely and reflexively define ourselves by virtue of our constellations of concerns about the world. The experiences we encounter within the world arouse our concerns, and it is the power of reflexivity that enables us to prioritize some of these, but without neglecting others, through the ‘internal conversation’. The particular configurations of such concerns and processes of reflection that arise because of our individual innate characteristics and life experiences constitute our distinct personal identities. Personal identity emerges through the process of individuals reflexively surveying the three orders of reality, considering their response to their encounters with them and then determining where their ultimate concerns lie and how other concerns are to be accommodated to them” (p. 284).
Li suggests that reflection is important to developing personal identity.
I connected with this part of Li’s article because I have recently been working closely with the core competencies from the refreshed curriculum. The core competencies are categorized into three areas including communication, thinking (creative and critical thinking), and personal and social (positive personal and cultural identity, personal awareness and responsibility and social responsibility). For me, the core competencies are perhaps the most important part of the refreshed curriculum and relate to Li’s views on personal identity.
In their classrooms, teachers create learning opportunities (experiences as Li refers to them) for students where they are able to “practice” the core competencies in collaborative settings with their classmates. Students “internally converse” or reflect on their core competencies after participating in the learning opportunities.
As a French teacher consultant in our district I have received a lot of questions about the core competencies and how they will be assessed. The Ministry has said that students will be self-assessing on the core competencies but have not provided any guidance to teachers on what this might look like. I recently attended a workshop in our district titled Creating Spaces for Playful Inquiry. As part of the workshop we participated in some professional learning on the core competencies (connected to playful inquiry and the use of provocations). A vice-principal in our district was able to clearly layout a simplified and practical way to allow students to self-assess the core competencies. She suggested the use of feedback frames and I-statements (found in the competency profiles). A feedback frame is something the students would fill out after completing an activity or experience. See an example below:
Feedback Frame for Competencies
I used the materials to express a message (communication)
My ideas are fun, entertaining or useful for me and my peers (creative)
I can usually make my ideas work if I keep trying (creative)
I can gather and combine new evidence with what I already know to develop reasoned conclusions, judgements, or plans (critical)
What strengths of mine did I use? (personal awareness)?
I tried to communicate something with my creation. Describe the message (communication):
A challenge in this activity for me is (personal awareness):
Perhaps the Ministry should have attended this particular workshop so that they can begin to inform teachers of possible ways to self-assess the core competencies and so that teachers can begin to feel a little less overwhelmed with all the changes happening this year with the implementation of the refreshed curriculum and reporting order.
The central premise of Li’s article is that as humans, learners can’t be isolated from their personal identity and the contexts in which they live; as such, it is irrelevant to study learning experiences in isolation from the other experiences that make up a learner’s life. Li identifies and explores three orders of reality from the research and writing of Margaret Archer, and examines the types of knowledge connected to those orders. Li then explores how pieces of human experience from each of these orders affected the learning experiences of a group of adults in a specific case study.
I found the discussion of the different types of knowledge to be very interesting. While Li is making a case for a more holistic approach to assessing learning technologies, Li also successfully makes a case for a more holistic and balanced approach to teaching and learning philosophy. Li connects each order and the associated type of knowledge to a different theory of learning: behaviourist approaches support the development of embodied knowledge, connected to the natural order; cognitivist approaches support practical and procedural knowledge, associated with the practical order; social constructivist approaches support discursive knowledge, connected to the social order. By pointing out the different strengths of each teaching approach, and by emphasizing the importance of all three orders (and types of knowledge) Li effectively (whether intentionally or not) demonstrates the importance of a diverse and balanced teaching philosophy.
I found this appeal for balance encouraging, as I have always strongly felt that teaching philosophies must be applied in connection with each other. Learning through one method supports learning through other methods. Reading this article made me think of a situation in a math class where a student was struggling with a math problem that was essentially asking the student to add 7+8. I think solving math problems would fit within discursive knowledge, as problem solving is a process of exerting mastery over the practical order). However, this student struggled with math calculations (which are generally practical or embodied knowledge). Because he was unable to quickly calculate 7+8, doing the addition was not an accessible solution for him. In this case, the inquiry-based problem solving approach to learning was not supporting this student. In order to apply problem-solving skills, he needed to strengthen his ability to calculate math facts. Without the practical or embodied knowledge to calculate 7+8, he couldn’t apply discursive problem solving skills to solve the math problem. In that situation, I remember feeling really frustrated with the divisiveness of many discussions debating inquiry-based math approaches versus memorization and practice of math facts. It doesn’t need to be a question of one versus the other – the two approaches support each other, and as such should both be used. I appreciated how the explanation of the different types of knowledge gave a clear explanation of why a balanced teaching approach is necessary.
I made a connection to Li’s article because of my initial motivation for joining DLC3. I also wanted to know what other factors needed to be considered when bringing technology into my classroom.
Li’s article describes what other things need to be considered when using technology in the classroom. She described e-learning, learning, and technology in a real world student context and not just the setting of the virtual learning environment. Li begins by describing the 3 learning levels: Micro-level (immediate learning environment), mesa-level (educational institutions) and macro-level (wider cultural, societal, political and economic contexts), which affects e-learning. All these levels must be considered together when considering technology used in an educational setting. The mesa and macro levels influence the individual learners daily technology use. She further elaborates this idea by describing Archer’s 3 Orders of Reality. I had a difficult time understanding what figure 1 meant and had to keep referring back to the readings to clarify what the Venn diagram meant.
Archer’s 3 Orders of Reality (p.282) describes the relationship between
• Natural order on the left, which is, embodied knowledge from interactions with nature, what we know though our senses and the body.
• Societal order on the right, which is the discursive knowledge that we learn through symbolic means and culture.
• Practical order in the middle of the Venn diagram overlaps the other 2 areas and describes practical knowledge or the knowing how knowledge that comes through material artifacts such as tools and technology.
In the water analogy Li explanation helped my understanding. She describes an encounter with deep water as part of the natural order and one that we experience in a positive or negative way when we float or drown. If we use a row boat our interaction with the water is mediated by using the boat, a material artifact because we need practical knowledge to row the boat. A rower may become skilled at rowing so that rowing becomes an extension of their body and then the knowledge becomes embodied. Discursive knowledge of water, wind and tides, which develops through our interactions with science and society based on experiences. I agree with Archer’s ides and can see that in our classrooms we need to move beyond the knowing what knowledge to knowing how to use technology so that our students build skills. Over time this can become discursive knowledge due to its use in society and culture and as comfort with use of the technology increases.
I think this theory relates to teachers and students in the elementary school setting because just having technology in the building doesn’t increase knowledge and understanding. If we want e-learning to take place students must be taught how/practical knowledge to use information communication technology. They need to develop an understanding of its value in their lives. For my research I am trying to show my grade 2/3 students how iPads can be used for more than games and watching YouTube videos. I am showing the various functions like the camera, web browser and various applications so that they use these functions for multiple purposes. Instead of watching YouTube they could create their own videos one day.
I think many of us in this masters program can relate to the case study of the Bachelor degree program in China because we have many of the same thoughts as we learn about using digital technology as students and educators. In our first course we talked about what brought us to DLC3. For some it was the desire to learn new knowledge about technology, for others it was getting improved qualifications and for others it was getting a pay raise. Like the students in the study we have also faced struggles and a variety of emotions as we also juggle our personal lives with our job expectations and the requirements of being part time students. Our desire to learn about the technology and other topics and completing the program is what keeps us motivated. They talk about the need for flexible and adaptable learning resources, which I agree are important to us as students, but I think they are also important to our young students. Flexible and adaptable learning resources are convenient, but also can help a variety of learning styles.
E-learners are diverse in nature, ability and purpose. Each will need to make their own connections between their personal needs and their goals when learning with technology.