In an interesting correlation between technology and university culture, Stephen Marshall presents the notion that it is the very culture within universities that ascribe to a set of strict fundamentals and organizational practices that limits the ability of technology to be sufficiently innovative in implementing new practices and organizational change within institutions of higher learning (Webley, 2012).
Marshall explains that technology acts more like a tool that reinforces current practices and implements already intended changes yet still conforms to the very same unperturbed internal culture (O’Brien et al., 2011). While the views of Marshall are somewhat accurate, as seen in the case of online distance learning courses that attempt to emulate the educational experience of a university, it cannot be stated that they are 100% correct.
For example, Coursera.com, which is a new development in providing a free online learning experience for students around the world, was a direct result of inter-university collaborations by Ivy League institutions in order to innovate the current way in which teachers and students approach the concept of education.
From this example alone it can be seen that the assumptions of Marshall are not entirely correct since that there have been legitimately fruitful efforts established by universities to utilize technology in a way that is completely outside of their internal cultures in order to create an entirely new teaching and learning experience (Young, 2012; Kamenetz, 2012).
On the other hand, when examining the case of the methods utilized to teach English and I.T. (information technology) to students in grades 5 and 6 within the U.A.E it can be seen that technology was used a means of speeding up the process through the distribution of course materials and the creation of computerized learning tools but the basic format by which students learned was still the same regardless of the technologically based methods used to teach them (Autio, Hietanoro & Ruismäki, 2011; Maria et al., 2011).
This is in stark contrast to the achievements accomplished by collaborations such as Coursera.com wherein students actually become participants in the discussion and teaching process through the establishment of student forums for discussion, the implementation of lessons wherein students check each other’s papers as well as the establishment of online social groups where students actively participate in offline study groups in order to better internalize the lesson material.
Such practices can be noted as a use of technology in a way that Marshall intended (Patterson, 2012). Within the context of my own experiences as an educator of English and I.T. within the U.A.E, I have to say that a similar strategy as presented by Coursera.com may become a viable model for future practices in education.
For example, students could take various class modules online and discuss the topic with their peers on the forum created by the school.
With the distribution of iPads and various tablet devices within the student population of the U.A.E, such a strategy could potentially supplement the teaching methods utilized within classroom environments wherein teachers help to reinforce and clarify ideas that students are initially unfamiliar with from the online course modules rather than having to explain every aspect of the lesson within the class (Hamdan, 2012).
Through the use of various online quizzes and methods of examination, a teacher can gauge the overall level of understanding of students regarding particular lessons and create a lesson plan the next day to address such issues (Rossing, 2012; Maria, Ilias & Efstathios, 2011).
Overall, by establishing the aforementioned methods, this can create a better and more efficient way of addressing the process of education by utilizing technology as more than just a simple extension of present day learning processes.
Reference List
Autio, O., Hietanoro, J., & Ruismäki, H. (2011). Taking part in technology education: elements in students’ motivation. International Journal Of Technology & Design Education, 21(3), 349-361.
Hamdan, S. (2012). U.A.E. moves toward paperless classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/world/middleeast/29iht-educlede29.html?_r=1&
Kamenetz, A. (2012). THE COURSERA EFFECT. Fast Company, (168), 98.
Maria, K., Ilias, A., & Efstathios, S. (2011). Students’ Views on the Use of New Technologies in Art Education: An interdisciplinary Approach to HigherEducation. Review Of European Studies, 3(1), 60-70.
Maria, K., Persa, F., Ilias, A., & Efstathios, S. (2011). Teaching Art Using Technology:The Views of High School Students in Greece. Review Of European Studies,3(2), 98-109.
O’Brien, C., Aguinaga, N. J., Hines, R., & Hartshorne, R. (2011). Using ContemporaryTechnology Tools to Improve the Effectiveness of Teacher Educators in SpecialEducation. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(3), 33-40.
Patterson, G. A. (2012). Blending education for high-octane motivation. Phi DeltaKappan, 94(2), 14.
Rossing, J. P. (2012). Mobile Technology and Liberal Education. Liberal Education,98(1), 68.
Webley, K. (2012). Reboot the School. (cover story). Time International (South PacificEdition), 180(2), 32.
Young, J. R. (2012). Inside the Coursera Contract. Chronicle Of Higher Education,58(42), A9.