6

Click here to load reader

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in ... · PDF fileInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Quality Teaching and

  • Upload
    vukhanh

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in ... · PDF fileInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Quality Teaching and

© Kamla-Raj 2014 J Communication, 5(2): 197-202 (2014)

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD):

Quality Teaching and Learning Outcomes

Adele L. Moodly1 and E. O. Adu2

Faculty of Education, University of Fort Hare, East London, Eastern Cape, South AfricaTelephone: 1<+27 43 7047229>, 2<+27 84 925 1948>,E-mail: 1<[email protected]>, 2<[email protected]>

KEYWORDS Information and Communication Technology. Higher Education. Education for SustainableDevelopment. Teaching and Learning. Learning Outcomes

ABSTRACT This study examined from a theoretical perspective the importance of ICTs in education, in thecontext of education for sustainable development (ESD). More specifically, it also focused on the system ofanalysing intended learning outcomes (ILOs) as a means of improving teaching and learning. The study suggestedthat with advanced technology, cognisance has not been taken of the demands placed on the Faculty members, whoas academicians are increasingly involved in administrative tasks, rather than the core business of teaching andlearning, community engagement and research. It concluded that the application of ICTs does not necessarily addvalue to the maxim of Education for Sustainable Development, or education in general. The focus has to be ontechnology that adds value to the education experience, and Faculty needs to guard strongly against administrativeprocesses and procedures that threaten to overwhelm and detract from the value of teaching and learning.

INTRODUCTION

The maxim “education for sustainable devel-opment” (ESD) still remains a top priority “inna-tional policy documents and on the global agen-da” dating back to two decades “since the EarthSummit in Rio in 1992”. A decade later, it againreceived precedence “at the United NationsWorld Summit on Sustainable Development inJohannesburg 2002” (United Nations 2002). TheUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organisation (UNESCO) (2003a: 32), facil-itated the implementation of ESD objectives “bymeans of the Framework for a Draft Internation-al Implementation Scheme, where a new visionof education was expressed that will hopefullylead toprofound changes in higher education”.Education globally, thus, has to look at the long-term, the future, emphasizing “a holistic, inter-disciplinary approach to developing the knowl-edge and skills needed for a sustainable futureas well as changes in values, behaviour, andlifestyles (United Nations 2002; UNESCO 2003a:46).

The Kyoto Declaration of 1993, adopted by90 universities across the globe, challenged high-er education worldwide to accomplish an essen-tial mission in global sustainable development(SD). A major theme, namely, that of global learn-ing, is a notion that originated from the Declara-

tion (Anderberg et al. 2009). Wehrmeyer andChenoweth (2006: 131) also stated that globalsustainable development is of international im-portance. “For the successful implementationof sustainable development by society, much isdependent on individuals being informed andeducated about the interaction of environmen-tal, social and economic issues, together withtheir relevance to individuals every day activi-ties and work”. This places a major responsibil-ity on Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) interms of offering curricula that are cognisant anddeliver on the teaching of sustainable develop-ment across the range of programs (Wehrmeyerand Chenoweth 2006).

Ko Nomura (2010), writing on higher educa-tion in Japan, for example, also described thepressure “to respond to diversifying socialneeds, which includes the drive towards sus-tainable development” in South Africa,

“In terms of its national mandate, the De-partment of Education (sic) has to ensure thatall higher education institutions (HEIs), regard-less of status, meet the requirements for address-ing the inequities and imbalances of the past.Part of this is to ensure that all HEIs offer rele-vant, quality services to society for the purpos-es of social, cultural, economic and political de-velopment” (Moodly and Saunderson 2009:1563).

Page 2: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in ... · PDF fileInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Quality Teaching and

198 ADELE L. MOODLY AND E. O. ADU

HEIs therefore “have to ensure that programofferings have the ability to meet the require-ments for facilitating development within a trans-forming society, including skills development inscarce skills areas and to redress past inequali-ties. In doing this HEIs will serve the new socialorder and meet pressing national needs by re-sponding to new realities and opportunities”(Moodly and Saunderson 2009: 1563).

The above discussion reflects a global movein the focus of HEIs towards contributing toESD, demanding greater responsibility of Facul-ty staff to review curricula, to remain regionally,nationally and globally relevant in this regard.Education is seen as key in the process of achiev-ing sustainable development. Visser (1997) em-phasised that “in order for formal education tocontribute to sustainability, traditional systemsand methodologies need to be re-oriented. Viss-er explained that:

“Centuries of development in educationhave not been able to avoid the fact that nearlyone billion people in the world are illiterate,more than 130 million children do not attendschool, and many of those who do, acquireknowledge that does not sustain them or is ir-relevant for their needs. There is a clear indi-cation that yesterday’s solutions are inadequatefor today’s problems, and there couldnot be aclearer signal that doing more of the same isnot a valid solution.”

Research shows that even in developed coun-tries where educational levels are high; the edu-cation system has not succeeded in influencingchoices and behaviours that would support sus-tainable development. According to Adu et al.(2014: 38), “more than 80% of the populationhas higher education in the USA. The rates ofenergy use and the generation of leftover in theUSA are among the highest in the world. Higherlevels of education have not led to more sus-tainability of education. Simply educating citi-zens to higher education levels has not beensufficient to attain sustainable societies”.

In 2005, UNESCO launched the “Decade forEducation for Sustainable Development,” whichaims to accelerate the implementation of a newvision in education. The Decade is a call for acollaborative process to re-orient educationalpolicies, programs and practices so that educa-tion can better play its part in building the ca-pacities of all members of society to work to-gether to build a sustainable future (UNESCO

2000). According to UNESCO (2003b) “this vi-sion of education emphasizes a holistic, inter-disciplinary approach to developing the knowl-edge and skills needed for a sustainable futureas well as changes in values, behaviour, andlifestyles.” Eze and Adu (2013) found that manychanges called for in ESD could be supportedthrough greater integration of ICTs in the learn-ing environment.

Paas and Creech (2008) emphasised that ICTsplay an important role in advancing ESD in twoways. By increasing access to educational ma-terials about sustainability (for example, via dis-tance learning, educational networks and data-bases); and by helping to promote new ways ofinteracting to facilitate the learning called for inESD that emphasizes not just knowledge, butchoices, values and actions. Explaining thesetwo ways, Paas and Creech (2008) put forwardthat at their most basic level, ICTs enable thepresentation of course content using multime-dia (images, text and sound) and facilitate ar-chiving of that content. They also provide newmeans of interactivity and simulation, thereby,offering opportunities to improve learning andmaking new ways of understanding possible.The use of new technologies, thus, can offerexciting new possibilities to promote the chang-es in education methodologies called for in ESD.

INFORMATION ANDCOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

IN EDUCATION

Information and communication technolo-gies can be understood as a tool or techniquefor extending human capacity. In this sense, ICTsextend our human capability to perceive, under-stand and communicate. The portable phoneenables us to communicate from wherever weare, to others, who are thousands of kilometresaway; television permits us to see what is hap-pening on the other side of the globe, almost asit happens; and the Web supports instant ac-cess to, and exchange of, information, opinionsand shared interests (Adu and Olatundun 2013).

In the field of formal education, ICTs are in-creasingly deployed as tools to extend the learn-er’s capacity to perceive, understand and com-municate, as seen in the increase in online learn-ing programs and the use of the computer as alearning support tool in the classroom. Al-though, universities were certainly leaders in

Page 3: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in ... · PDF fileInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Quality Teaching and

ICT IN EDUCATION 199

engineering the internet and interoperable com-puter systems to connect researchers for e-mailand data exchange, the use of ICTs for educa-tion and training has lagged behind other sec-tors in society (Adu et al. 2014; UNESCOBangkok 2003: 75).

According to Tella and Adu (2010), the useof ICT in education and training has only begunwhen access to ICT services and higher band-widths become more available to learners. Thedanger is that we ascribe to new technologiesthe characteristics of previous media and ac-companying educational practices without de-velopment and reflection on new and better waysto support and evaluate learning outcomes.

To the best use, these technologies in edu-cation, new pedagogies and learning assessmentmethods may, and probably will be required. Inthis rapidly advancing field, it is worth reviewingthe history, current uses and trends in ICTs thatwill further influence how education practices maybe changed in future. Educators are continuingto develop new applications and online resourc-es to support learning objectives in all disciplines.The field of environment and sustainable devel-opment education is no exception.

The use of technology in course instructionis an inevitable transition in higher education.However, infusion of educational technology oncollege and university campuses for faculty andstudent use does not always result in its suc-cessful integration into either instruction or thecampus, nor does it mean that the quality ofeducation has improved (Abrahams 2010). Abra-hams argued for a change in focus to “how tosuccessfully adopt and diffuse technology orinstruction to increase or improve their ability toeducate using technology”. Although, there isa tendency to claim that technology has impact-ed positively on teaching in HEIs, it is arguedthat in essence there has been no real change inteaching and learning approaches.

The experience of both faculty and studentsalike is that it has been minimal in this regard.Johnston and McCormack (1996) stated that forthe majority of university teachers, it seems thatthere are still many barriers to and some person-al misgivings about moving away from a solereliance on traditional teaching approaches andmoving towards integrating various technolo-gies into their teaching.

It is also argued that for many universities,“the Internet revolution arrived on campus fast-

er than anticipated” (Johnston and McCormack1996: 39). Although, technologies, such as, cam-pus computer centres, personal computers andthe Internet have generated interest, there hasalso been resistance and opposition to their usein the area of teaching by faculty (Abrahams2010). Abrahams like Johnston and McCormack(1996), argued that technology has to “maintainand strengthen the quality of its educational forinstruction to increase or improve their ability toeducate using technology”. This demands anunderstanding of the manner in which ‘technol-ogy is diffused and what kind of adaptation isneeded’ and, therefore, an understanding of “thecontext of technology and education in the larg-er culture”. This calls for research on teachingand the use of technology that is “reflective,grounded and open” considering the views offaculty, staff and others (Nicolle 2005).

TECHNOLOGY AND ASSESSINGTHE INTENDED LEARNING

OUTCOMES (ILOS)

Intended learning outcomes is a term coinedby HEIs and higher education, as an attempt “todescribe the knowledge and abilities it intendsits graduates to have acquired before gradua-tion”. This entails a variety of teaching, learningand assessment methods characterised by va-lidity, reliability and within a “workable manner”(Shephard 2009: 389).

Hussy and Smith (2003: 360), stated that ‘notall teachers are comfortable with precise descrip-tions of intended learning outcomes”, and someare ‘cautious about teaching and assessing inthe affective domain’ (Shephard 2009: 390). Shep-hard further stated that not all Faculties see the“value of e-learning and use of technologies inteaching contextsand display a range of emo-tional responses when expected to do so”.Johnston and McCormack (1996: 38) are of theview that;

“The link between educational outcomesand information technology is also problemat-ic. Information technology of itself does nothave an educational value unless it is put towork in educationally sound ways. Technolo-gy can be misused by teachers as can any teach-ing tool. The introduction of information tech-nology does not guarantee enhanced teachingand learning”.

Page 4: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in ... · PDF fileInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Quality Teaching and

200 ADELE L. MOODLY AND E. O. ADU

This viewpoint was presented by Abrahams(2010) and Nicole (2005), and once again remindsus that technology in itself, serves no value.Assessing learning outcomes (a concept that,as previously mentioned, not all teachers arecomfortable with), using technology, does notnecessarily mean that teaching and learning isimproved or enhanced. It does not guaranteevalue in itself, nor does it add value to teachingand learning, if it is not applied in a clear andfocused way. “Excellent teaching may or maynot involve the use of information technology;poor teaching may or may not involve informa-tion technology” (Johnston and McCormack1996; Nicolle 2005).

The argument is, therefore, that an approachthat favours the application of information tech-nology “must be driven by educational needsrather than a desire to use the technology for itsown sake”. Advancement needs to be appraisedto ascertain that the educational outcomessought, are being achieved. “Any associateddisadvantages of using the technological ap-proach” must not detract from its overall educa-tional value” (Johnston and McCormack 1996).

DISCUSSION

In terms of the demands made on HEIs, and,therefore, on academics/ Faculty, academics mustensure that the curricula contributes to ESD. Asstated, the responsibility for the “successfulimplementation of sustainable development bysociety’ places much pressure and responsibili-ty on HEIs and, thus, Faculty, to nurture “indi-viduals” who are “informed and educated aboutthe interaction of environmental, social and eco-nomic issues, together with their relevance toindividuals’ every day activities and work” (We-hrmeyer and Chenoweth 2006: 140). Emphasishas been placed on integrated learning out-comes as previously discussed, as an attempt“to describe the knowledge and abilitiesit in-tends” (Shephard 2009: 390), albeit that not allFaculty is comfortable with this description.Nonetheless, these ILOs are analysed in termsof technologically developed software, whichwill analyse assessment tools to the minutestdetails in terms of meeting the ILOs.

This demands that the Faculty has the abili-ty and time to analyse and assess their teachingand assessment processes, by having the ablityto analyse tools of assessments (tests, assign-

ments, projects, and examinations) in a numeri-cal value that can be entered into software thatwill reflect whether all the ILOs of a particularcourse/subject has been met. Given that a Fac-ulty member may decide on ten (a random num-ber), or more assessment tools, of a value of upto 100 marks, for example, it demands that theFaculty member inputs this into the system in amanner that reflects that all learning outcomeshave been covered. Then, having marked twohundred or more scripts (again a random figure),the Faculty member has to input these individu-al figures into the system. The software, then,allows for the analysis of the data as entered toassess whether all the ILOs of a particular coursehave been satisfied, and where these have notbeen satisfactorily met. It also allows for com-parisons between results of Faculty membersoffering the same courses. The danger of thissystem is that it can lead to deliberate misrepre-sentation of figures, and compromising in thequality of assessment tools if the system is notcarefully managed or monitored.

The maxim Education for Sustainable Devel-opment and the demand for quality may be com-promised in favour of a favourable outcome inthe reflection of ILOs assessed, and positiveresults reflected. It must also be considered thatFaculty not familiar with, nor experts at technol-ogy, may input data incorrectly, leading toskewed results. The assessment of ILOs in sucha technologically-driven manner, may lead topressure on Faculty to compromise on mattersof quality and the higher maxim of ESD, in favourof a positive reflection of their performance interms of the results reflected.

A further danger is that Faculty that are ded-icated and offer assessments of a good stan-dard, may be compared to Faculty that are in-clined to leniency in both assessment tools andstandards of marking. Quality assurance pro-cesses should take cognisance of the fact thatgood Faculty, experts in their areas of speciali-sation, may not be technologically inclined.Further, the stresses and demands in terms oftime consumption in inputting data of ILOs, maytake away valuable time that could have beenspent on teaching and learning.

Thus, as emphasised by Johnston and Mc-Cormack (1996), there has to be a clear link be-tween educational outcomes and informationtechnology. If Information and Communicationtechnology is not put to work in educationally

Page 5: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in ... · PDF fileInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Quality Teaching and

ICT IN EDUCATION 201

sound ways, it does not add any value. Wehave to guard against the misuse of technology,and we must be cognisant that it does not guar-antee improved quality in teaching and learn-ing. Mechanisms have to be considered in alle-viating the increasing demands on Faculty toperform administrative functions, such as anal-ysing and inputting data. This may mean an in-crease in teaching assistant staff, or decreasedteaching workloads, amongst other consider-ations.

CONCLUSION

More schools and communities now haveaccess to ICT resources to join the global econ-omy with knowledge workers who have 21st cen-tury skills and are inspired by life-long learning.ICTs have great potential for knowledge dissem-ination, effective learning and the developmentof more efficient education services. ICT will notonly sustain development of education but alsothe global energy, environmental and social chal-lenges. Besides, the present study argues thattechnological advancement has not necessarilymeant an improvement in teaching and learningstandards.

The introduction of ILOs and the assess-ment, thereof, does not necessarily add value tothe maxim of Education for Sustainable Devel-opment, or education in general. On the con-trary, technology can be manipulated, as can bethe input on data regarding ILO assessments, ifnot carefully monitored. This can add to thestress of Faculty, as well as deprive them of valu-able time that could be spent in teaching andlearning. The focus has to be on technologythat adds value to the education experience, andFaculty need to guard strongly against adminis-trative processes and procedures that threatento overwhelm and detract from the value ofteaching and learning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The study, however, recommends among oth-ers that the faculty should focus on technologythat adds value to the education experience, andthe faculty needs to guard strongly against ad-ministrative processes and procedures thatthreaten to overwhelm and detract from the val-ue of teaching and learning.

REFERENCES

Abrahams D 2010. Technology adoption in higher ed-ucation: A framework for identifying and prioritis-ing issues and barriers to adoption of instructionaltechnology. Journal of Applied Research in HigherEducation, 2(2): 34-49.

Adu EO, Olatundun SA 2013. The use and managementof ICT in schools: Strategies for school leaders. Ed-ucation Journal of Computer Science and Informa-tion Technology (EJCSIT), 1(2): 10-16.

Adu EO, Adelabu O, Adjogri SJ 2014. Information andCommunication Technology (ICT): The Implica-tions for Sustainable Development in Nigeria. In:Proceedings of World Conference on EducationalMultimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications2014, Chesapeake, VA: AACE, pp. 35-43.

Anderberg E, Nordén B, Hansson B 2009. Global learn-ing for sustainable development in higher education:Recent trends and a critique. International Journalof Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(4): 368-378.

Eze I, Adu EO 2013. The Utilization of ICT in Educa-tion for Sustainable Development. In: T Bastiaens,G Marks (Eds.): Proceedings of World Conferenceon E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Health-care, and Higher Education 2013. Chesapeake, VA:AACE, pp. 1514-1522. (Retrieved on 15 November2013).

Hussey T, Smith P 2003. The uses of learning out-comes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3): 357–368.

Johnston S, McCormack C 1996. Integrating informa-tion technology into university teaching: Identify-ing the needs and providing the support. Interna-tional Journal of Educational Management, 10(5):36-42.

Ko Nomura, Osamu Abe 2010. Higher education forsustainable development in Japan: Policy andprogress. International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, 11(2):120-129.

Moodly A, Saunderson I 2009. Quality assurance inSouth African higher education: With specific refer-ence to Walter Sisulu University (WSU) – EasternCape Inted 2009 Valencia: 1560-1569.

Nicolle P 2005. Technology Adoption into Teachingand Learning by Mainstream University Faculty: AMixed Methodology Study Revealing the “How,When, Why And Why Not”. Doctoral Dissertation,Unpublished. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State Uni-versity and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Paas LC, Creech R 2008. How Information and Com-munications Technologies Can Support EducationFor Sustainable Development. Canada: InternationalInstitute for Sustainable Development.

Shephard K 2009. e-Technology is for exploration:Assessing hard-to-measure learning outcomes. Brit-ish Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2): 386–398.

Tella A, Adu EO 2010. Information communicationtechnology and curriculum development: The chal-lenges for education for sustainable development.Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 2(3):55-59.

United Nations 2003a. Framework for a Draft Interna-tional Implementation Scheme. New York: UNESCO.

Page 6: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in ... · PDF fileInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Quality Teaching and

202 ADELE L. MOODLY AND E. O. ADU

UNESCO 2003b. ICTs in Education. From <http://ictsineducation.tagcb.edu.jo/> (Retrieved on 10 Sep-tember 2014).

UNESCO 2003. Decade of Education for SustainableDevelopment (January 2005 – December 2014)Framework for a Draft International Implementa-tion Scheme. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations 2002. The World Summit on Sustain-able Development. Johannesburg, South Africa: UN.

Visser J 1997. Elements for a Vision of Where theWorld of Learning is Going. Learning Without Fron-

tiers: Beyond Open and Distance Learning. WorldConference on Distance Education, PennsylvaniaState University. From <http://www.unesco.org/edu-cation/educprog/lwf/doc/icde/icde.html> (Retrievedon 9 September 2014).

Wehrmeyer W, Chenoweth J 2006. The role and ef-fectiveness of continuing education training coursesoffered by higher education institutions in further-ing the implementation of sustainable development.International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, 7(2): 129-141.