Happy Dubai January 2015
Teaching statement
Christianity changed the world (Schmidt 2004; Hill 2005; Sunshine 2009). Former President Nelson Mandela (n.d.) once said that education is a powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. Brought together, theology and higher education can, in my opinion, bring positive change to South Africa. My greatest aspiration is to teach in such a way that the students not only gain knowledge and competencies but also transferable skills and capacities to be agents of change, influencing their communities and work places towards positive change. I also believe that this transformation process can be fun, an adventure, interesting, rewarding and ultimately life-changing.
In order for education to bring about change, the noun needs to be changed to a verb or action, like teaching and learning. A change from the abstract idea to measurable actions and outcomes is what teaching should be about – and a change like that requires a total mind shift from both educators and students.
However, in education, change is not something that happens quickly or easily. One of the reasons for this is because it is not primarily the “what” (content) of teaching and learning that needs to change, but “how” (means) we teach and learn (Bates 2010:22). This is especially true for Theology – what we teach is more or less set, but how the message is transferred and how it is used in changing circumstances and different settings, constantly needs adjustment to stay relevant and applicable for the world we live in. I firmly believe that the teaching of theology is part of the core mission of the University because theology is still the “queen of science” (Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica); the source and roots of Western research and science as we know it. I am convinced that course material (in theology) that constitutes an abstract qualification with no real value and impact on the lives of students, let alone on the communities in which they function, cannot be justified as core content. It goes therefore without saying that the content taught must be of a very high quality and must also constantly be updated.
The reason why the focus for change should fall on the means through which we teach and learn, is because we are in the midst of the so-called 4th revolution (Warschauer & Matuchniak 2010:179):
· The first revolution in the development of society was language.
· The second revolution came through the development of writing.
· The third major change in society was brought about by the printing press.
· The current revolution that all of us are experiencing is living in a network society.
Even though not everyone is included in the network society, everyone is affected by it (Castells 2009) and that is why it is so important to focus on teaching and learning from this perspective. Teaching in a network society at an ODeL institution, narrows the focus down to heutagogy – self directed, flexible and student-centred learning (Hase & Kenyon 2000).
Embedded in the policy documentation of UNISA (2008), and from my daily activities I used to see learning as student-centred, active, flexible and life-long and I know that it can take place in a formal, informal or non-formal way. In the network society, however, there are also two additional characteristics of learning that need to be kept in mind:
· Learning is not always planned and structured; it happens anywhere and anytime and is interwoven with other (non-academic) actions.
· The network society requires from all (both educators and students) to constantly unlearn and re-learn (McLoughlin & Lee 2010). This is extremely important for both lecturers and students.
Over a period of 3 years I did reflexive research on the courses taught in our discipline, in order to establish if and to what extend the courses are relevant to and living up to expectations when measured against the principles of heutagogy. The research revealed a great deal of pedagogy, to a lesser extent andragogy (Knowles 1970), and very little traces of heutagogy. To my mind the most important challenge of re-curriculating the B.Th. programme (and the upgrading of the Hons. courses) would be to structure it around the heutagogical principles (including the fact that it is a net-centric approach – Blaschke 2012).
In order to place the control of the learning process in the hands of the students, and to allow them to focus on self-directed learning and make it a flexible process, we as lecturers need to let go of the reigns a bit and open up our perceptions in order to allow other sources (not only the carefully written study guides) to form and develop and influence the students’ learning and thinking processes.
I am utilising the R2D2 model (Bonk and Zhang 2006) for course design on heutagogical principles. This model explicitly focuses on structuring content, activities, and outcomes around the four learning styles. The students are encouraged to explore their own learning styles and to study the processes through which they learn (an aspect often found lacking in existing courses). In addition, and to complete the heutagogical approach, students are encouraged to develop a Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Through this tool students are able to (Tu 2012):
· set their own learning goals (interwoven with all aspects of their lives),
· manage their learning (both the content and the process),
· communicate with others (eliminate isolation especially in ODL and silo thinking),
· and to see and understand the bigger picture and the need to focus on life-long learning.
Increased flexibility brings with it increased responsibility and although heutagogy is seen as the ultimate ideal, not all students – even at post-graduate level – are able or willing to make this transition to function in a learning environment where they must take control of and manage their own learning (Hill 2013). There are three reasons underlying this lack of ability in students:
1 Students are used to pedagogy and expect pedagogy (sometimes with a little andragogy added).
Most UNISA students come from an educational system where learning takes place in a structured environment through directed and paced instruction. Most of our students are passive participants who expect to be taught, provided with all relevant information pre-packed, and see courses only as content. Some researchers like Winter et al (2009), go further and say that students do not really want to learn. They want to be successful in the course – pass it with good grades and obtain a qualification – but they do not want to do “extra” work or take full responsibility for the learning process.
2 Students are OK with mediocre results – achieving just enough to comply with the minimum standards.
Students need constant motivation to evolve to the upper levels they could reach and making the most of each learning opportunity for self-improvement and capacity building.
3 Students fail to grasp the bigger picture of a life-long learning journey.
They lack the skills, experience and confidence to learn in a totally different instructional and technological designed environment and to transfer competencies into capacity. “Competency” can be defined as the proven ability in acquiring knowledge and skills, while “capacity” can be defined as learner confidence in his/her competency and, as a result, the ability to take appropriate and effective action in both familiar and unfamiliar and changing settings (Cairns 2000:1).
As a possible solution to these problems educators need to supply scaffolding to move students from dependent learners to self-directed learners. Students must be assisted to move from dependent to interested to involved, and finally to self-directed (Heick 2012). This is done by incorporating the following into the teaching approach:
1 The teaching and learning strategy is expanded to include more than just discipline focused content and activities:
Students are taught basics such as the different learning styles, how to learn, to develop confidence through active participation in the learning process, and to take responsibility for their own learning by focusing on key issues such as the development of critical thinking skills, essay writing, note taking and reflection and practicing higher level thinking (Bloom’s taxonomy).
2 The understanding that the acquisition of knowledge and skills does not necessarily constitute learning: Learning occurs when the learner connects the knowledge and skills to previous experiences, integrate it fully in terms of value, and is able to actively use it in meaningful and even novel ways.
3 The network society focuses on knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (and not so much on knowledge hoarding).
Scaffolding (Rosenshine & Meister 1992) often includes the following components, where the lecturer must:
· present the different (and to the student often new) cognitive strategies;
· regulate the difficulty level of exposure during guided practice;
· provide varying contexts for students to practise;
· provide constant and detailed feedback;
· increase student responsibility, choice and levels of flexibility;
· provide independent practice opportunities.
If, in the light of the above mentioned, I am asked if there is really a space for heutagogy in Open Distance e-Learning for Theology students at UNISA, the answer is without hesitation, “YES, definitely, not only space, but a definite need.”
In conclusion, if Cross (2010) is correct in saying that helping students to be all they can be is not charity, it is the ultimate goal of teaching at a University, then I as a lecturer cannot give up on the dream of heutagogy, and I must continue to try and help students up the scaffolding towards the top and forming them into positive change agents who will actively contribute to the building of a better community, a better South Africa, a better Africa and ultimately a better world.
References
Bates, T. (2010). New challenges for universities: Why they must change. In U-D Ehlers & D Schneckenberg (eds.) Changing cultures in higher education. Moving ahead to future learning. Heidelberg: Springer. pp 15-25.
Blaschke, LM. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. International review of research in Open & Distance learning, 13(1), 56-71. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
Bonk, C.J. & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), pp. 249-264.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. Australian Capability
Network Conference Sydney. pp. 1–14.
Cross, J. (2010). ‘They had people called professors...!’ Changing worlds of learning: Strengthening informal learning in formal institutions. In U-D Ehlers & D Schneckenberg (eds.) Changing cultures in higher education. Moving ahead to future learning. Heidelberg: Springer. pp 43-54.
Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From Andragogy to Heutagogy. Retrieved from: http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/articles/dec00/hase2.htm
Heick, T. (2012). The four stages of the self-directed learning model. Retrieved from: http://www.teachthought.com/learning/a-primer-in-heutagogy-and-self-directed-learning/
Hill, J. 2005. What has Christianity ever done for us? How it shaped the modern world. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Hill, P. (2013, March 2). The four student archetypes emerging in MOOCs. [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://mfeldstein.com/the-four-student-archetypes-emerging-in-moocs/
Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy. New York: Associated Press.
Mandela, N. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nelsonmand157855.html
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
2010, 26(1), 28-43. Retrieved from: http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching high cognitive strategies. Educational leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Schmidt, AJ. (2004). How Christianity changed the world. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Sunshine GS. (2009). Why you think the way you do: the story of western worldviews from Rome to home. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Tu, C. (2012). The integration of personal learning environments & open network learning environments. Techtrends: Linking research & practice to improve learning, 56 (4), 13-19.
Unisa. (2008). Open Distance learning policy.
Warshauer, M & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in Education, 34, 179-224. Doi: 10.3102/0091732X09349791
Winter, A., Auliffe, M,. Chadwick, G., & Hargreaves, D. (2009). Implementing academagogy: The first case study. 20th Australasian association for engineering education conference. University of Adelaide, 6-9 December 2009. pp 992-997. ISBN 1876346590
In order for education to bring about change, the noun needs to be changed to a verb or action, like teaching and learning. A change from the abstract idea to measurable actions and outcomes is what teaching should be about – and a change like that requires a total mind shift from both educators and students.
However, in education, change is not something that happens quickly or easily. One of the reasons for this is because it is not primarily the “what” (content) of teaching and learning that needs to change, but “how” (means) we teach and learn (Bates 2010:22). This is especially true for Theology – what we teach is more or less set, but how the message is transferred and how it is used in changing circumstances and different settings, constantly needs adjustment to stay relevant and applicable for the world we live in. I firmly believe that the teaching of theology is part of the core mission of the University because theology is still the “queen of science” (Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica); the source and roots of Western research and science as we know it. I am convinced that course material (in theology) that constitutes an abstract qualification with no real value and impact on the lives of students, let alone on the communities in which they function, cannot be justified as core content. It goes therefore without saying that the content taught must be of a very high quality and must also constantly be updated.
The reason why the focus for change should fall on the means through which we teach and learn, is because we are in the midst of the so-called 4th revolution (Warschauer & Matuchniak 2010:179):
· The first revolution in the development of society was language.
· The second revolution came through the development of writing.
· The third major change in society was brought about by the printing press.
· The current revolution that all of us are experiencing is living in a network society.
Even though not everyone is included in the network society, everyone is affected by it (Castells 2009) and that is why it is so important to focus on teaching and learning from this perspective. Teaching in a network society at an ODeL institution, narrows the focus down to heutagogy – self directed, flexible and student-centred learning (Hase & Kenyon 2000).
Embedded in the policy documentation of UNISA (2008), and from my daily activities I used to see learning as student-centred, active, flexible and life-long and I know that it can take place in a formal, informal or non-formal way. In the network society, however, there are also two additional characteristics of learning that need to be kept in mind:
· Learning is not always planned and structured; it happens anywhere and anytime and is interwoven with other (non-academic) actions.
· The network society requires from all (both educators and students) to constantly unlearn and re-learn (McLoughlin & Lee 2010). This is extremely important for both lecturers and students.
Over a period of 3 years I did reflexive research on the courses taught in our discipline, in order to establish if and to what extend the courses are relevant to and living up to expectations when measured against the principles of heutagogy. The research revealed a great deal of pedagogy, to a lesser extent andragogy (Knowles 1970), and very little traces of heutagogy. To my mind the most important challenge of re-curriculating the B.Th. programme (and the upgrading of the Hons. courses) would be to structure it around the heutagogical principles (including the fact that it is a net-centric approach – Blaschke 2012).
In order to place the control of the learning process in the hands of the students, and to allow them to focus on self-directed learning and make it a flexible process, we as lecturers need to let go of the reigns a bit and open up our perceptions in order to allow other sources (not only the carefully written study guides) to form and develop and influence the students’ learning and thinking processes.
I am utilising the R2D2 model (Bonk and Zhang 2006) for course design on heutagogical principles. This model explicitly focuses on structuring content, activities, and outcomes around the four learning styles. The students are encouraged to explore their own learning styles and to study the processes through which they learn (an aspect often found lacking in existing courses). In addition, and to complete the heutagogical approach, students are encouraged to develop a Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Through this tool students are able to (Tu 2012):
· set their own learning goals (interwoven with all aspects of their lives),
· manage their learning (both the content and the process),
· communicate with others (eliminate isolation especially in ODL and silo thinking),
· and to see and understand the bigger picture and the need to focus on life-long learning.
Increased flexibility brings with it increased responsibility and although heutagogy is seen as the ultimate ideal, not all students – even at post-graduate level – are able or willing to make this transition to function in a learning environment where they must take control of and manage their own learning (Hill 2013). There are three reasons underlying this lack of ability in students:
1 Students are used to pedagogy and expect pedagogy (sometimes with a little andragogy added).
Most UNISA students come from an educational system where learning takes place in a structured environment through directed and paced instruction. Most of our students are passive participants who expect to be taught, provided with all relevant information pre-packed, and see courses only as content. Some researchers like Winter et al (2009), go further and say that students do not really want to learn. They want to be successful in the course – pass it with good grades and obtain a qualification – but they do not want to do “extra” work or take full responsibility for the learning process.
2 Students are OK with mediocre results – achieving just enough to comply with the minimum standards.
Students need constant motivation to evolve to the upper levels they could reach and making the most of each learning opportunity for self-improvement and capacity building.
3 Students fail to grasp the bigger picture of a life-long learning journey.
They lack the skills, experience and confidence to learn in a totally different instructional and technological designed environment and to transfer competencies into capacity. “Competency” can be defined as the proven ability in acquiring knowledge and skills, while “capacity” can be defined as learner confidence in his/her competency and, as a result, the ability to take appropriate and effective action in both familiar and unfamiliar and changing settings (Cairns 2000:1).
As a possible solution to these problems educators need to supply scaffolding to move students from dependent learners to self-directed learners. Students must be assisted to move from dependent to interested to involved, and finally to self-directed (Heick 2012). This is done by incorporating the following into the teaching approach:
1 The teaching and learning strategy is expanded to include more than just discipline focused content and activities:
Students are taught basics such as the different learning styles, how to learn, to develop confidence through active participation in the learning process, and to take responsibility for their own learning by focusing on key issues such as the development of critical thinking skills, essay writing, note taking and reflection and practicing higher level thinking (Bloom’s taxonomy).
2 The understanding that the acquisition of knowledge and skills does not necessarily constitute learning: Learning occurs when the learner connects the knowledge and skills to previous experiences, integrate it fully in terms of value, and is able to actively use it in meaningful and even novel ways.
3 The network society focuses on knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (and not so much on knowledge hoarding).
Scaffolding (Rosenshine & Meister 1992) often includes the following components, where the lecturer must:
· present the different (and to the student often new) cognitive strategies;
· regulate the difficulty level of exposure during guided practice;
· provide varying contexts for students to practise;
· provide constant and detailed feedback;
· increase student responsibility, choice and levels of flexibility;
· provide independent practice opportunities.
If, in the light of the above mentioned, I am asked if there is really a space for heutagogy in Open Distance e-Learning for Theology students at UNISA, the answer is without hesitation, “YES, definitely, not only space, but a definite need.”
In conclusion, if Cross (2010) is correct in saying that helping students to be all they can be is not charity, it is the ultimate goal of teaching at a University, then I as a lecturer cannot give up on the dream of heutagogy, and I must continue to try and help students up the scaffolding towards the top and forming them into positive change agents who will actively contribute to the building of a better community, a better South Africa, a better Africa and ultimately a better world.
References
Bates, T. (2010). New challenges for universities: Why they must change. In U-D Ehlers & D Schneckenberg (eds.) Changing cultures in higher education. Moving ahead to future learning. Heidelberg: Springer. pp 15-25.
Blaschke, LM. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. International review of research in Open & Distance learning, 13(1), 56-71. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
Bonk, C.J. & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), pp. 249-264.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. Australian Capability
Network Conference Sydney. pp. 1–14.
Cross, J. (2010). ‘They had people called professors...!’ Changing worlds of learning: Strengthening informal learning in formal institutions. In U-D Ehlers & D Schneckenberg (eds.) Changing cultures in higher education. Moving ahead to future learning. Heidelberg: Springer. pp 43-54.
Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From Andragogy to Heutagogy. Retrieved from: http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/articles/dec00/hase2.htm
Heick, T. (2012). The four stages of the self-directed learning model. Retrieved from: http://www.teachthought.com/learning/a-primer-in-heutagogy-and-self-directed-learning/
Hill, J. 2005. What has Christianity ever done for us? How it shaped the modern world. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Hill, P. (2013, March 2). The four student archetypes emerging in MOOCs. [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://mfeldstein.com/the-four-student-archetypes-emerging-in-moocs/
Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy. New York: Associated Press.
Mandela, N. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nelsonmand157855.html
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
2010, 26(1), 28-43. Retrieved from: http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching high cognitive strategies. Educational leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Schmidt, AJ. (2004). How Christianity changed the world. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Sunshine GS. (2009). Why you think the way you do: the story of western worldviews from Rome to home. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Tu, C. (2012). The integration of personal learning environments & open network learning environments. Techtrends: Linking research & practice to improve learning, 56 (4), 13-19.
Unisa. (2008). Open Distance learning policy.
Warshauer, M & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in Education, 34, 179-224. Doi: 10.3102/0091732X09349791
Winter, A., Auliffe, M,. Chadwick, G., & Hargreaves, D. (2009). Implementing academagogy: The first case study. 20th Australasian association for engineering education conference. University of Adelaide, 6-9 December 2009. pp 992-997. ISBN 1876346590