(http://www.flickr.com/photos/rolandlegrand/3010674172/)
As the use of course management platforms has become mainstream, instructors are encouraged and compelled to use them as the medium through which their pedagogy originates. Course materials, contact information, discussion posts, assignments, rubrics, dropboxes and even attendance can be monitored through CMSs, but are all these tools fully integrated is the question.
Of late tools like Elluminate which allow for synchronous and asynchronous communication - video and file sharing, and recordings- are also being utilized as classroom extensions. For every use there is an accompanying technology. To create animation and audio, for example, Ludmila Smirnova (2009) has identified the following tools: "Voki, Yodio, VoiceThread, PodOmatic, Gcast [and] Photostory3."
George Siemens (Laureate, n.d.) notes how part of an instructor’s role is to “assist learners in forming networks,” similarly technology leaders need to do the same for instructors so they can understand how tools such as Elluminate can enhance learning and other classroom functions.
While it is not exactly an uphill battle, technology is not fervently welcomed by all. In some cases, technology can be viewed as a distraction, an obstacle or a hindrance to teaching styles that prefer interactions unencumbered by Smartboards, mobile devices, emails or tweets.
Presented with the possibilities of a system where grades, attendance, discussion, announcements and assignments and any other instructional element are neatly grouped, there is still resistance by those who do not want to conform.
In this vein, John Keller’s (2000) ARCS- attention (A), relevance (R), confidence (C), and satisfaction (S)-model could be used to engage instructors to improve their understanding of technology and the potential it holds to enhance pedagogy- organization, preparation, execution, engagement and learning. To allay faculty feelings of inadequacies or fear of obsolescence, use of ARCS is a move toward improving reception and dialogue about technology by exemplifying the power of “user-created aspect of the Web” (Smirnova, 2009, 125)... “Many forward-thinking educators are progressing in this area with the help of other educators in their Personal Learning Networks.”
Sounds like connectivism?
“Relevance results from connecting the content of instruction to important goals of the learners, their past interests, and their learning styles. One traditional way to do this is to relate instructional content to the learners’ future job or academic requirements” (Keller, 2000, p.2). Smirnova (2009) suggests that categorizing e-tools by their functionality can also be useful to teachers as they learn and determine which technological option is most suitable to meet their needs.
Call it academic freedom or inconformity, the reality is that reasons for adoption teeter based on a delicate balance between preference and necessity.
Smirnova (2009) aptly submits this cautionary node: “The outcome is that the teacher as individual is further disadvantaged in keeping up with their students unless they are willing to swim in the same ocean... The result is that teachers need to both master these new tools if they want to capture their power as pedagogical aides and remain current” (p. 126).
References
Keller, J. (2002). How to integrate learner motivation planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model approach. Retrieved from http://mailer.fsu.edu/~jkeller/Articles/Keller%202000%20ARCS%20Lesson%20Planning.pdf
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d.) Connectivism Learning Theory. (video).
Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.Lulu.com.
Smirnova, L. (2009, December 11). Opening educational and personal horizons with the new emergent technologies. Retrieved from http://www.virtuniv.cz/images/3/3c/Smirnova.pdf
