|
Reflections on researching practice
E-learning in Art and Design:
Perceptions and practices of teachers in undergraduate studio-based
disciplines
“… knowledgeability and skills acquired and used
in professional practice are often tacit, acquired socially
and are contextually contingent… Researchers, on the
other hand, often want to collect data via interviews, surveys,
and other instruments, which 'capture' elements of professional
practice in an unproblematic way. This contrast can give rise
to questions about exactly what the value and meaning of such
data actually is… What important issues does this quote
raise for your research and how would you address them?”
Download short paper
(rtf format)
A proposal under development
and permanently in draft form...
E-learning in Art and Design:
Perceptions and practices of teachers in undergraduate studio-based
disciplines.
There is a perception among some of my
colleagues who teach in studio-based disciplines that e-learning
can contribute little to teaching and learning. These colleagues
argue that the learning environments of studio-based disciplines
have a contextual influence on teaching and learning that
makes them different from non-practice-based. The inference
is that e-learning is unsuitable for the teaching and learning
methods associated with studio-based disciplines. This is
what triggered this research proposal.
The Subject Centre for Art, Design and Media – Higher
Education Academy (ADM-HEA) encompasses a wide range of disciplines
that range from mostly theory-based disciplines such as Media
Studies, to others that are mostly or exclusively studio and/or
practice-based. The later include Fine Arts, Graphic Design,
Fashion Design, Interior Design, Music, Textiles, Photography,
and Ceramics. These disciplines are the focus of this research
for they reflect the teaching and learning culture characteristic
of the Art and Design studio-based sector, and are under-represented
in e-learning research. There are limited studies on comparative
use of online learning technologies between different sciences
but the research literature on e-learning in Art and Design
is minimal. It is not a neglected but rather an under-developed
area. There is some research on disciplinary uses of digital
resources in general but not e-learning specifically. This
limited research indicates differences between ‘soft’
and ‘hard’ sciences (Jones, Zenios & Griffiths,
2004). Nicos Souleles
This phenomenographic study addresses questions about the
ways in which Higher Education (HE) teachers in studio-based
disciplines consider and/or engage with e-learning, and then
it compares teacher perceptions and practices against the
literature and rhetoric of ‘innovative’ practices
and learning theories associated with e-learning. The first
part of this research is a survey of the various attitudes
and practices vis-à-vis e-learning and studio-based
disciplines. What are teacher perceptions of e-learning in
Art and Design? How prominent is the position that e-learning
is incompatible with the teaching and learning methods of
studio-based disciplines? How is e-learning used for teaching
and learning?
The second part of this research compares the perceptions
and practices against the rhetoric and literature of e-learning
and ‘innovative’ practices. Themes that emerge
from this literature (and are often supported by government
policies and funding organisations), call not only for the
incorporation of e-learning in the curricula, but also for
the re-evaluation and re-consideration of pedagogies to allow
for new ways of teaching and learning to develop. It is explicit
in this literature that innovation involves a change of perceptions
and practices at both the teacher and organizational levels,
and that teachers require appropriate incentives to engage
with e-learning, as well as appropriate professional development
The synthesis between part one and part two of this research
will elaborate on the alignment or misalignment between perceptions
and practices in the one hand, and the literature and rhetoric
of ‘innovative’ practices and e-learning on the
other. This study will investigate trends and issues that
may or may not be unique to Art and Design. It can also indicate
underlying causes, rationales, and outcomes associated with
the varied levels of awareness and uses of e-learning in studio-based
disciplines.
The Art and Design context
A study by The Social Informatics Research Unit (2003) on
the implementation of Managed Learning Environments (MLEs)
in HE, identifies resistance to online learning technologies
in Art and Design, and attributes this – without further
elaboration - to the situated nature of the related disciplines
including teaching and learning strategies. Nicos
Souleles
[At Norwich School of Art and Design] There is uncertainty
about the ‘fit’ of commercial VLE platforms with
the specific and to some extent a-typical needs of the Art
and Design curriculum. (The Social Informatics Research Unit
et al., 2003, p.25)
At the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff
there was an historical reluctance [in the School of Art and
Design] to engage with the VLE because of the importance of
studio-based, student teacher interactions. (The Social Informatics
Research Unit et al., 2003, p.35)
The physical interaction with artifacts
is essential to the studies [in Art and Design] as is the
real-life interaction between learners and subject. This cannot
be replaced… (The Social Informatics Research Unit et
al., 2003, p.111)
Drew (2002, p.139) suggests that it is characteristic of Art
and Design that the adoption rate of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) is generally slow. These observations
hint at unique challenges in Art and Design and suggest the
need to ‘unpack’ and develop an awareness and
understanding of the teaching and learning methodologies that
are characteristic of the sector. Drew (2003, p.38) explored
some of these themes and referred to ‘recurrent practices
and implicit theories of learning and teaching’ that
stem from the vocational nature of the related disciplines.
The benchmark statement for Art, Design and Communication
(Buss, Gretton, 2002, p.2) states:
…programmes in art and design emphasise
imagination, creativity and, where appropriate, craft skills,
and are designed to develop students' intellectual powers
and their ability to communicate. The student experience embraces
subject specific and generic knowledge and understanding,
attributes and skills. Learning in art and design stimulates
the development of an enquiring, analytical, and creative
approach, and encourages the acquisition of independent judgment
and critical self-awareness. Most students work in studio
environments… students normally pursue a programme of
staged development progressing to increasingly independent
and personally focused learning… students produce material
outcomes which require the application of practical skills.
Some of these skills may be appropriate only to specific contexts,
whereas others have a generic or transferable applicability,
often within a professional context.
Donald (1995, p.7) suggests that disciplines
are defined epistemologically by their distinctive sets of
concepts, premises and hypothesis, and how these are assessed
and employed to produce further elaborations of knowledge.
It is characteristic of the social sciences to adopt interpretive
methods and to rely upon observations, interpretations, and
perceptions to make claims for knowledge. In brief, the benchmark
statement states that imagination and creativity, combined
with practical craft (vocational) skills, are mostly developed,
supported, and acquired through studio environments and studio-based
practices, and outcomes manifest as material artifacts.
This chapter consists of a literature review on the pedagogies
of Art and Design. The aim is to describe the prevailing teaching
and learning methods in studio-based disciplines. Some of
these include ‘sitting-by-Nellie’ (the apprentice
approach), formative learning supported through demonstrations
of practical skills, critical questioning and reaction against
cultural norms, project-based learning, negotiated learning
contracts and the ‘final show’ (Drew, 2003, p.44).
E-learning and pedagogies
The term ‘e-learning’ needs to be defined for
it is regularly associated with jargon or is ambiguous. Often
it is used too ‘liberally’ or indistinctly to
encompass a variety of online learning activities (including
synchronous and/or asynchronous) without distinguishing among
variations of e-learning and their different requirements,
objectives and applications. Some definitions of e-learning
emphasise the technological aspect and imply stand-alone computer-based
training packages transferred to the Internet. This use of
the term places emphasis on the electronic nature of the content
and not the communicative potential. In HE literature there
is some consensus that e-learning entails electronic access
and interaction with learning materials, fellow learners,
and tutors, with the focus on the communicative and networking
potential of e-learning rather than content delivery (Mason,
2002, p.28).
...e-Learning is the systematic use of networked
multimedia computer technologies to empower learners, improve
learning, connect learners to people and resources supportive
of their needs, and to integrate learning with performance
and individual with organisational goals. This definition
works best in the context of corporate learning, but can be
made to work in HE. It is best seen as an amplification of
the idea of networked learning, within which extra emphasis
is given to the connections between learning and behaviour
and between the goals the individual learner sets for themselves
and those valued by the organisation within which their learning
is taking place… (Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning
Technology, 2001, pp.153-4)
Irrespective of the form and the multiple educational and
institutional caveats, there is considerable advocacy for
the potential and intrinsic educational opportunities possible
through e-learning (Laurillard, 2002). It is argued that the
educational aspects of e-learning HE relate to the communicative
potential of online learning technologies, and these draw
from constructivist and social practice theories of learning
– the instructor as facilitator of knowledge construction
(Mason, 2002). The strong advocacy for e-learning and the
emphasis on appropriate pedagogies, come with calls for teachers
to ‘innovate’, i.e. to develop new pedagogies
that take advantage of the possibilities offered by e-learning.
‘…the use of the new technologies must be seen
in the context of teaching practices. Furthermore, they must
be adapted to the different subject areas and contribute to
an interdisciplinary approach… new technologies will
notably allow for the implementation of new types of relationships
between students and teachers…’ (Commission of
the European Communities Communities, 2000, p.8).
According to Bates (2000, pp.16-20) the most frequent reasons
that HE institutions adopt online learning technologies, are
to improve the quality of learning, to provide learners with
information technology skills needed for their professional
development, to widen access to education, to respond to the
‘technological imperative’, and to reduce costs
and improve cost-effectiveness. These correspond very closely
with those identified by Uys (2000), which are flexibility,
links to the emerging culture of post-modernism, cost-effectiveness
of delivery, improvements in the quality of learning, and
addressing the increase in demand for HE. For HE institutions,
the pedagogic drivers exist in various degrees even if outcomes
do not always match original expectations.
This chapter will cover a literature review of e-learning
pedagogies and the associated learning theories. The purpose
is not only to list and describe the characteristics of different
methods and the educational premises that accompany them,
but also to compare them against the instructional methods
practiced in studio-based disciplines.
Ontology and philosophical approach
Conole et.al (2004) suggest that ontology is not always evident
in e-learning research. ‘…this relationship [between
philosophical position and research methodology] remains largely
unexplored… what is distinctive about e-learning research
is that awareness of the problem [philosophical position]
is generally lacking…’ For the purpose of this
conversion document there is a requirement to provide for
‘…a reasoned explanation of the particular philosophical
approach taken in the participant's research project, with
particular attention paid to epistemology and ontology.’
Broadly, there two versions of technological determinism:
a ‘hard’ view, which perceives technological development
as an autonomous force, completely independent of social constraints,
and a ‘soft’ view which holds that the presence
of a particular technology is an enabling or facilitating
factor leading to potential opportunities; these may or may
not be taken up in particular contexts. ‘Soft’
versions of technological determinism recognise in ICTs the
existence of unique qualities and the significance of appropriate
use of online learning technologies that can contribute to
educational change (Jones, 2004a; McConnell, Lally & Banks,
2004; Hodgson, Watland, 2004). As opposed to ‘hard’
determinism that perceives external pressures as the driving
force for change, ‘soft’ determinism implicitly
places the onus on individuals and organisations to develop
awareness.
Even when researchers do not make explicit their ontological
position, it is possible to detect an underlying philosophical
stance. For example, Bates (2000) refers to technological
change in the context of the ‘learning organisation’;
the ‘journey’ will reveal what is appropriate
use of ICT and e-learning. From this perspective – characteristic
of ‘soft’ determinism - the ontological assumption
about the nature of e-learning knowledge involves no absolute
to ‘unpack’ and measure or estimate, but rather
a ‘patchwork’ and a ‘mosaic’ of actuals
dependant upon numerous and various contexts that are constantly
evolving. The prominent themes in e-learning research include
how to enhance learning, what new instructional models are
possible, how effective assessment can be structured, what
the technical, managerial and structural requirements for
e-learning are, what is appropriate staff development, what
protocols and standards are needed to ensure transferability
of materials, and issues that relate to accessibility, copyright
and plagiarism (Conole, 2004). It would seem that the interpretive/hermeneutic
paradigm (knowledge is open to multiple interpretations) is
a suitable research model when there are no universal answers,
and when practices are context specific, open to interpretation,
negotiation, convention, and political, financial, social
and technological pressures; the topic of research is multifaceted.
‘We must not forget that learning technology research
is a practical and applied discipline which is contextualized
in nature.’ (Conole et.al, 2004, p.95)
|
