A paradigm shift in the teaching and learning of science using technology in Mauritius: Making a case for incorporating the affective domain.
Yashwantrao Ramma1, Ajeevsing Bholoa1, Mike Watts2 , Martin Samy2
1Mauritius Institute of Education, Brunel University, U. K, 3Leeds Metropolitan University, U.K
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
Through a systematic review of the literature we indicate how the affective domain has been consistently overlooked by current frameworks for integrating technology in the teaching and learning of Science. We argue that presently technology is overwhelmingly employed in education in Mauritius as a source of information rather than a process-based means of knowledge construction which is the premise for conceptual understanding. In this theoretical paper we propose a framework, pedagogical technological integrated medium (PTIM),that builds on the existing premises of pedagogy, content/contextual knowledge and technology to include the affective domain at the common intersection of these three premises. The affective dimension is further explored as a space for interaction between learners, teachers, parents and the social dimension in a series of stages encapsulating, home tasks based on prior knowledge with the lesson delivery at school. We posit that a succinct synchronisation of these various elements would ensure successful implementation of the framework.
Key words:affective domain, pedagogical technological integrated medium, knowledge construction, conceptual understanding
- INTRODUCTION
Technology has permeated all spheres of our lives such that it is no more considered a luxury and its avoidance would leap us backwards and counter advancement in every aspect of our undertakings. Science and technology have always been closely linked, given that the principles of science are the foundations for technology (Snyder, 2004). However, most of the time, in education, technology is used as a source of information and innovation in this domain is related to hardware and software (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1991)rather than as a process-based means for knowledge construction.
This study has been carried out on the basis of a different perspective: that technology is not only a stand-alone discipline but also a tool which permeates the teaching-learning process. In many instances, in education, technology is considered as a tool that teachers use to teach a given concept. However, it makes a difference when technology is used as a pedagogical tool for teaching and learning as it encompasses the technological competence as promulgated by Dyrenfurth (1990) and Layton (1994), namely, technological knowledge, technological skill and technological will. Autio (2011) confirms that in technology classes in Finland, some teachers are well organised in guiding learners. This competency, an element of the 21st century skills (Shelly, Gunter & Gunter, 2012), should permeate across the whole curriculum.
For the purpose of this study, technology for the teaching and learning of science has been considered. The technological tools are in the form of personal computers/laptops, video projectors, data logging devices and tablets constituting a suitable set which facilitate the interaction between teachers and learners, while pedagogy is taken to be the medium that acts as a catalyst to activate the process of knowledge construction in the learner.Moreover, it is understood that technology can provide the appropriate medium for teachers to nurture higher-level thinking in students by means of carefully structured activities.While the cognitive domain is essential in knowledge acquisition, Autio & Hansen (2002) and Autio (2011) adds in the interplay the significant role of the emotional will which is encapsulated in the affective domain. However, literature on use of technology in education is mostly directed towards the cognitive domain and in cases where the affective domain is considered there is little insight of its incorporation in the teaching –learning process. Questions are still being asked as to whether teachers are giving due consideration to the affective dimension of students’ learning with technology.
In this paper, we propose a framework for integrating technology in teaching and learningwhich captures the affective domainby putting forth a proposal for the inclusion of the affective domain with the collusion of the social dimension. ThisworkWe extendson theour previous research ontechnology integration (Ramma, Tan & Mariaye, 2009) in science and which includesthe three domains-contextual knowledge, pedagogy and technology- together with an additional one – the affective domain for purposeful knowledge construction by learners.Meaningful learning decreases reliance on rote memorization and assists learners in internalising concepts thereby leading to conceptual understanding.Such an internalization is personal to the individual and is a function of his/her emotional will. Illeris (2003) argues that the social dimension is a non-negligible element for a learner as it is amenable to ‘participation, communication and co-operation’ (p. 399). In such a context, technology is referred to as being a pedagogical technological integrated medium that teachers use to engage learners in the construction of purposeful knowledge structures with the intention of developing in them a critical mind.
The paper thus contributes to theory in that it may inform researchers as well as practitioners on how to better build their research design centered about the affective domain within a growing technological-mediated perspective.
- CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION
Technology is facing a challenging phase where it is under constant pressure to display the desired outcomes (Schrum et al., 2007) in terms of improving the quality of teaching and learning. Clarke (1983) emphasizes this idea of what constitute media to be the vehicle for conveying instruction rather than bringing appropriate benefits in performance. After Clarke made such a thought-provoking reflection, nothing much has changed in the way teaching and learning take place in the classroom when technology is used. And thirty years later, we are still making such similar observation. The traditional instructional mode is still prevalent (Bah-lalya, 2006; Seebaluck & Seegum, 2012; Kim et al., 2013) despite the fact that we are living in a touch-button/touch-screen world. Though learners display imaginative configurations outside the classroom, a majority of them become mere observers and demonstrate remoteness from those technology-savvy experiences and finally adopt a passive mode in ‘receiving’ knowledge.
The construction of knowledge by learners through conceptual change (Posner et al., 1982; Chi et al.,1994)entailsdissatisfactions with the existing knowledge in the very first instance,and the acquisition of conceptual knowledge, it is to be noted, takes into consideration cognitive as well as emotional elements (Zembylas, 2005). More importantly, Vosniadou and Brewer (1994) are of the view that the neglect of motivational beliefs may constrain conceptual change.Intrinsic motivation (Covington & Mueller, 2001; Ryan & Desi, 2000)becomes the determining factor to satisfy one’s curiosity, inducing self-satisfactions (Ryan, 1993). Knowledge construction and the development of cognitive structures are closely associated with the inducement of ‘personally meaningful goals’ (Covington & Mueller, 2001, p. 166) or by ‘designing their [students’] own knowledge base’ (Jonassen, 1995, p. 43) and the readiness to learn and explore is a natural behaviour of mankind.
The learner centered pedagogy builds on a constructivist paradigm and emphasizes students’ readiness (Richardson, 2003)as one of the determining factors for their engagement in developing cognitive structures around prior knowledge (Zohar, 2002; Otero & Nathan, 2008) or ‘dissonant events’ (Cakir, 2008, p. 4). Knowledge construction heavily depends on prior knowledge of learners (Jonassen, 1995; Richardson, 2003; Cooperstein and Kosevar-Weidinger, 2004; Cakir, 2008; Dixon, 2012) and the latter acts as a baseline for the development of conceptual change and critical thinking. The acquisition of concepts is evidenced by the appropriate transfer of learning based on an ‘actor-oriented transfer model’ (Lobato, 2003). This model recognizes the social and cultural dimensions as determinants in structuring learners’ generalising experiences.
Teacher preparation (Lee & Krapfl, 2002; Hudson, English & Dawes, 2009) is also an additional element that should not be ignored for bringing about conceptual change in learners. It is unfortunate that teachers’ knowledge about the prominence of prior knowledge is either not given due importance, or is simply treated as uniformly acquired by all learners. In addition to prior knowledge, Redish (1994) propounds the contact between the teacher and learners as enablingthe teacher to capture the mental model of the learnersand to guide them to construct cognitive structures in their minds. Therefore, it rests upon teachers to guide learners to structure the content into well-organised mental models (Redish, 1994; Zohar, 2004) or to reformulate the naïve mental models that some learners might have and which will impinge upon the construction of new cognitive structures.
The integrationof technology, in particular computers, in the traditional classroom necessitates a paradigm shift in the way interactions between the teacher and learners occur. This shift must have the potential to pay attention, not only to knowledge and skills, but also to the beliefs and attitudes of the learners (Bransford et al., 2000). Zohar (2004) adds a note of caution on the different form that an innovative project may take when teachers continue to hold the transmission-of- knowledge model. The beliefs and attitudes developed by learners in the context of the classroom environment should in no way be in contradiction to those acquired in society in general. It is crucial that the classroom environment reflects the social dimension in which learners operate in their day to day interactions.
- TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN
The integration of technology in education is, in most instances, motivated by the behaviourist model of Skinner or the cognitive learning theories of Piaget, Bruner or Ausubel, whereby the learner is believed to be the recipient of knowledge and has to follow instructions to be able to manage the content. These learning theories place lots of emphasis on the ‘internal psychological process’ (Illeris, 2003, p. 397) of learners rather than on the‘external interaction process’ (Illeris, p. 398). The author explains that this external interaction process takes into considerationthe social dimension, as advocated byVygotsky (2004). In the light of the above, aparadigm shift is thus an essential factor contributing towards the successful integration of technology in teaching and learning,especially in a situation where technology is expected to ‘play a central role … in enhanc[ing] and support[ing] the higher order thinking skills’(Pope, Hare & Howard, 2005, p. 2) of learners.
Many researchers accentuatethe need for learners not to rely on content learning but to consider the three areas of learning – cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains, and also to pay much attention to the interrelationshipamong them. The lessons to be taughtdemand that they be carefully planned, designed and pitched at the appropriate level so that learners can construct purposeful knowledge structures (which are misconception free) through argumentation (Kuhn, 1993; Osborne, Erduran & Simon, 2004; Berland & Hammer, 2012; Sampson & Blanchard, 2012; Osborne et al., 2013; Walker & Sampson, 2013)and through evaluative behaviours.Osborne et al. (2004) indeed bring out the fact that ‘both epistemological and social structures in the classrooms are important factors for designing activities that foster argumentation’ (p. 997).Argumentation offers both teachers and students with the opportunity to interact and to value the shared information.
The acceptance of technology in the classroom is no more a debatable issue. It is generally acknowledged that we cannot ignore the use of technology in classroom transactions as it has already permeated all spheres of our lives. However, the question that we, educationists, keep on asking - is technology in education bringing substantial gains in outcomes? Cuban (2001) is of the view that ‘computers and other technologies have had little tangible effect on either classroom teaching or learning’ (p. 105) for the simple reason that they are used within the behaviouristic model. Cuban’s view is also shared by Clark (1983) who posits that confounding the use and purpose of technology in the classroom has contributed to accrediting learning gains when many studies have demonstrated no appreciable differences in outcomes. On the other hand, Roschelle et al., (2010) are of the view that a different approach to technology would produce robust effects in performance. Most research conducted on the use of technology (in particular personal computers, laptops, tablets, data logging devices, the Internet and other related accessories)revolves around the appreciation of these tools in teaching and learning since to be able to confirm the benefits of technology in gains demands both long term longitudinal and vertical studies. Moreover, we do not dispute the fact that the use of technology can transform teaching while creating adequate opportunities for learning (Groth et al., 2009; Borko, Whitcomb & Liston,2009; Kim et al., 2013) when an ‘actor-oriented transfer’ perspective (Lobato, 2003) is adopted. The amalgam between argumentation and the actor-oriented transfer approach in learning activities create such adynamism in the classroom that learners are pushed (through intrinsic motivational factors)toformulate optimal solutions to poorly conceptualised problems (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Barber (2012) offerssignificant consideration to the notion of integration of learning and considers that knowledge has become, for the past few decades, mobile such that it allows the ‘practices [to] facilitate the process’ (p. 3). Mobility in knowledge therefore offers a rich platform for technology integration in the classroom provided teachers’ beliefs match their understanding of the benefits of the effectiveness on students’ learning (Guzey & Roehrig, 2012). Teachers’ beliefs and motivation become the salient factors that need consideration for effective integration of technology in teaching and learning. Moreover, the emphasis on the social negotiation within a collaborative endeavour among key partners is essential in the process of technology integration.
An exhaustive literature search on embracing the affective domain in the use of technology in teaching and learning has revealed, as far as we can vouchsafe, one rare study conducted by Rovai et al.(2009) aboutmeasuring teachers’ perception of the affective domain in the use of technology and which has been conducted only at Higher Education level. Although some indication of the influence of the affective domain on technology surfaces out from their instruments, still it is not clear how such an interface between the affective domain and technology integrationcan actually take place in practice. The literature on the use of technology abounds, essentially in relation to the cognitive and psychomotor domains. However, the absence of the affective domain in technology integration is owing, primordially, to a lack of a meaningful framework that would conceptualise its raison d’être. As highlighted earlier, this paper is an attempt to address this gap by introducing a framework that captures the affective dimension in and outside the classroom.
- THE FRAMEWORK: PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATED MEDIUM
Based on an earlier framework (Ramma, Tan & Mariaye, 2009), promulgated by the leading author, and also referring to the outcomes of three projects: the ICT-data logging in Physics Project, Engaging in Thinking Project (which introduces the use of PDA and data logging in teaching and learning of primary science) and the completed Conceptual Physics Project (with technology in focus to address misconceptions - the present authors have developed a framework which integrate the affective domain into an interrelated element and which focuses on construction of knowledge (by learners)as the ultimate goal. Learning with technology has somehow downplayed the importance of the affective domain in teaching and learning though social networks constitute ‘platforms for virtual social lives’ (Tiryakioglu & Erzurum, 2011, p. 135). It should be highlighted that the UTAUT model (Ventatesh et al., 2003) makes an attempt to combine a number of constructs including behaviour and social influence with the use of technology. However, this model is better applicable to the business sector and its operationalization in schools is problematic.
The initial framework captured contextual knowledge, pedagogy and technology as the core elements in technology integration (for instance, Hughes, 2005) in the teaching and learning of science. Though content knowledge formed an integral component of contextual knowledge, its non-visibility in the framework limited its implementation when it comes to integrating teacher’s content knowledge with pedagogy and technology. The present framework is derived from the work of Koehler & Mishra (2005), Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Schmidt et al., (2009) on TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) and on ICT-TPCK by Angeli and Valanides (2009),while drawing on Shulman’s (1986) conception of content, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge.
Figures 1 & 2 below depict the interrelationships among the following core elements: content/contextual knowledge, technology and pedagogy. All the three elements are interconnected through technological content/contextual knowledge, pedagogical content/contextual knowledge, and technological/pedagogical knowledge, and are directly focused at learning, a construct that we strongly emphasise on. In contrast with the model proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) and that of Angeli and Valanides (2009), ours places learning at the centre of the various constructs. We consider these connections to be dynamic and flexible to accommodate changes in superimposing layers. Content and contextual knowledge are considered as a single integrated component which has a direct focus on learning, be it at the pre-primary, primary, secondary or tertiary levels.Content and contextual knowledge form a singular component as learning is best sustained when content and context form an integral configuration (Barab et al., 2001; Barab & Kishner, 2001; Mishra and Koehler, 2006).
We lay strong emphasis on the need to connect content with context as content should all the time be related to real life situations, a most important point also highlighted by Cuban (2001) while introducing his second goal to ‘transform teaching and learning into an engaging and active process connected to real life’ (p. 14) that allows learners to ‘come to grip with real world issues’ (p. 15). After all, is not the goal of education to prepare the current generation for the future workplace? Such a connection of content with context can be a source of intrinsic motivation for learners when they are required to relate theory and practice with process.