Conclusion

Conclusion

I offered reflections on technology-enhanced learning throughout my digital collection entries. For example, in the section on MS Word and supervision, I introduce the discourse around the use of technology as being either a neutral tool (deterministic position) or instrumental, where we as actors have choices in how we use the technology (instrumental position). I further point to the fact that a dualistic perspective is too narrow to discuss our use of technology in learning and that terminology and use need to be constantly critically reviewed. This critical stance is especially important with the rise of AI technology, such as ChatGPT, which can potentially be a paradigm shift in how we engage with the written word and knowledge. 

In my section on MS teams, I reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of in-person and online educational encounters. I feel in congruence with Fovet 2023’s observations on learners not yet reaching for the full potential of online tools to challenge traditional ways of learning and to engage with critical pedagogy. At the same time, I can see how online environments can offer additional functionalities in comparison to in-person learning. These functionalities support accessibility options for learners with different needs, content can be recorded (e.g. Panopto) and reviewed by students at later points, which supports the concept of scaffolding. The use of visuals in the online environment can convey ‘inclusive’ messages subtly, and this can nurture a safe learning environment, which promotes a sense of belonging, thus improving the learning experience. Furthermore, the online learning environment allows students with options to present themselves such as using pictures or messages, which are forms of expressing their identities. 

In my section on Moodle, I reflect on the importance of good interface design to make the use of the software easier but also more enjoyable. I offer a ‘hot tip’ from my colleague on how to capture students' attention and to visit Moodle. I further describe how I would like to use Moodle’s features more to create a sense of 'a learning community'. 

In the Padlet section, I refer to Hughes, Thomas & Scharber (2006)’s RAT model, which considers technology to be replicating, amplifying or transforming pedagogical practices. 
I consider Padlet to be a transformational pedagogical practice as it allows collaboration on an equity level (all participants are equal to contribute) synchronously and asynchronously from anywhere in the world as long there is digital connectivity.

Pro-social games are games that encourage positive behaviour. Although I was not able to get all students to engage with the game during the lecture, I invited Prof Priti Chopra, who was responsible with a wider team for the development of the pro-social game Danielle to speak about it. In my reflection in this section, I point to the issue that digital games are usually not considered as a learning experience in HEI. However, I advocate that it can be a transformative learning experience and could be combined with critical pedagogy when embedded with further reflective learning activities. I would like to do the latter in the future with BA Digital Game Design Students.   

References:

Adler-Kassner, L., & Wardle, E. (2015). Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. University Press of Colorado.

Armellini, A., & De Stefani, M. (2016). Social presence in the 21st century: An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1202-1216.

Bayne, S. (2015). What's the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’?. Learning, media and technology, 40(1), 5-20.

Carrington, A. (2015). The Padagogy wheel–it’s not about the apps, it’s about the pedagogy. Recuperado el, 9(08), 2021-2029.

Fovet, F. (2023). When Being Online Hinders 6 the Act of Challenging Banking ModelPedagogy. Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education.

Freire, P. (2000; first pub. 1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by M. Bergman Ramos. New York/London: Continuum.

Gonulal, T., & Loewen, S. (2018). Scaffolding technique. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-5.

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing technology integration:The RAT–replacement, amplification, and transformation-framework. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Holley, L. C., & Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroomenvironment. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49-64.

Osterman, K.F. 2000. Students’ Need for Belonging in theSchool Community. Review of Educational Research, 70:3, 323-267.

Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching for thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 775-802). New York: Cambridge University Press

Sappey, J., & Relf, S. (2010). Digital technology education and its impact ontraditional academic roles and practice. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 7(1), 3.

Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Socialconstructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411.

Taricani, E. (2007). Communities of blogging: Extensions of our identities. American Communication Journal, 9(3), 1-10.

Vygotsky, L.S, & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Language and thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Wilson, D., Jones, D., Bocell, F., Crawford, J., Kim, M. J., Veilleux, N., ... & Plett, M. (2015). Belonging and academic engagementamong undergraduate STEM students: A multi-institutional study. Research in Higher Education, 56(7), 750-776.

go back to introduction