Contemplation of Instructor Take-ons when Integrating Technology in Adult Learning

In this week’s blog post, I would like to elaborate on and confer my agreement with Swart et al. (2015) who succinctly resolved the responsibilities of an instructor, as inciting and facilitating the construction of a culture of learning and a thriving learning community. My examination of two instructor take-ons for the successful integration of technology in adult learning occurs within the context of an online post graduate formal program. In exploring a topic, I value context. Daffron and Cafferella (2021) note that context comprise of all persons concerned, including the institutional, economic, political, cultural, and social domains that are prime determinants in decision-making. 

Moore (2018) developed the transactional distance theory. The significance of this model was the conceptualisation of distance as the breadth of interaction and understanding between the instructor/facilitator and learner in online learning environments. Moore (2018) relates distance to the rigidity or flexibility in the structure of the program of learning, where the higher the structure, the lower the amount of interaction or dialogue with students, and thus the greater the transactional distance. However, it has been argued, investigated, and established that dialogue may be deepened through structure (Huang et al., 2016) using appropriate pedagogical- and technology-based approaches and strategies. 

Pedagogical approaches that are learner-centered, engender cooperative and collaborative learning, and include project-and task-based learning requisite planning, grounded on theoretical frameworks to be executed well, in the hope of accomplishing learning objectives. Most student populations in a learning course are diverse in demographics, backgrounds, experiences; ranging in emotional, psychological, and cognitive levels. Moreover, in this digital age, according to Prensky (2001) we can also differentiate persons into digital natives, referring to our modern day post-secondary adult students (Generation Z & Y), and digital immigrants (Generation X & Baby Boomer Generation). He incorporates most instructors into the digital immigrant category. But, in every generation, variations exist, even within this digitally savvy cohort. These designations widen the power dynamics between learner and educator, established from a myopic view of technology accessibility. Also, what about this separation of generations in terms of play or fun! I mean which one of us (I’m talking 40’s and over) haven't stated the adage “all work and no play makes insert you name here a dull human; and embarked on something entertaining and enjoyable!

Dear Instructors,    

Please don’t over generalise, when developing resources. Be open to make changes as you get to know your learners and their needs. The use of both synchronous and asynchronous communication is great, however, let’s not go overboard with either. Identify, “when, why, and how” to adopt a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous interaction (Hrastinski, 2008; as cited in Roach & Atardi, 2022, p. 861). We love to hear from you, both as a facilitator and one of us, as in learning from each others experiences and realizations. I think maintaining a position of neutrality is very “traditional”, don’t be biased but express your deliberations with concepts, theories, and peer relations. And let’s be honest, you may have a variety of instruments to promote our teacher-to-peer, peer-to-peer interaction, but there is no guarantee that these develop into dialogue. But then again how do you understand and perceive dialogue? And how do you intend to use dialogue in adult learning? Do you see it as a means to dissolve the power dynamic, an approach to pedagogy, a form of knowledge and inquiry, and/or the responsibility of educator, students, or both (Burbules & Bruce, 2010). But most importantly, please know that your efforts are seen and valued!

References

Burbules, N. C., & Bertram, C. B. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In Virginia Richardson (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4^th ed., pp. 1102-1121). American Educational Research Association

 

Daffron, S. R. &, Caffarella, S. C. (2021). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical 

guide (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaolo, C. A., & Simmons, L. L. (2016). Understanding transactional distance in web-based learning environments: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 734–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12263

Moore, G. M. (2018). The theory of transactional distance. In M. Moore & W. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 32-46). New York, NY: Routledge. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315296135-4 Links to an external site.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon 9(5), 1–6.  https://doi-org.er.lib.k-state.edu/10.1108/10748120110424816 Links to an external site.

Roach, R. A., & Attardi, S. M. (2022) Twelve tips for applying Moore’s theory of transactional distance to optimize online teaching. Medical Teacher, 44(8), 859-865. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2021.1913279 

Swart, W., Wengrowicz, N., & Wuensch, K. L. (2015). Using transactional distances to explore student satisfaction with group collaboration in the flipped classroom. International Journal of Information and Operations Management Education, 6(1), 24-48. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIOME.2015.073155