What's my legacy and why am I here?

Learning and teaching have been an ongoing passion, though I have not always taught. Clarifying my Professional Identity (Haamer, Lepp, & Reva, 2012) is ongoing but I have long considered myself a Learning Facilitator. Within the context of this subject, I sought to determine who I am professionally and chose to identify myself according to the current context in which I find myself, and therefore found a composite identity (Barker Caza & Creary, 2016). Yet, learning and facilitating are still key to who I am, and this is based on technical skills gained via professional experience outside of facilitation This aligns with the Social Constructivist theory defining Professional Identity as that self which is constructed socially and culturally during life by lived experiences. (Haamer et al., 2012).

The reality is that, at heart, I love learning and love to assist others to learn. I still take the leadership role, as I guide others in their learning, whether professionally or personally. I can see my Professional Identity melding into a more singular identity as I progress through my learning journey. Maybe at this stage of my career, Practical Learning Facilitator is correct and does not limit me to Academic or Pracademic, (Paszkiewicz, 2020). My aim is to develop into a Learning Facilitator who encourages learners to construct learning.

My passion for facilitation is based on the desire to learn, and the belief that, for a person to learn, they need to have a burning desire to discover or to learn (Merriam, 2001). The challenge, as a Learning Facilitator, is how to engage those learners who do not seem to be interested in learning.

As an adult learner, the notion of Self-directed Learning or Constructivism (Watson, Gagne, & Bruner, 2020) has always been my preference and this colours my facilitation, as I seek to guide my learners to take responsibility for their learning. Expanding on Constructivism I have come to realise that Lev Vygotsky (Verenikina, 2003), who is a Social Constructivist, and therefore acknowledges the social context of learning, nominated the Theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (Verenikina, 2003), in which peer learning was an effective learning method, and learners were not reliant on facilitators.

Reviewing the subject learning outcomes through the lens of Bloom’s taxonomy, (Sideeg, 2016) I note the outcomes require a progression from Lower Order to Higher Order Thinking Skills, moving from Knowledge through to Synthesis

(Sideeg, 2016). This natural progression clarifies the growth of understanding, and construction of learning, not only based on existing knowledge but also a growth of understanding of learning theories and principles. Suddenly my actions take on relevance and have a basis. I am an active learner, I do not learn by listening or reading, but rather by activities which enable me to build on what I know. Authentic Learning (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007) is learning by doing, and I see many examples within this subject.

As a Practical Learning Facilitator, I have instinctively worked with learners to draw out their needs, interest and learning preferences, modifying activities from class to class, to determine which ones are more effective or authentic (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007) for the learners, to construct meaning, in fact, I am now regularly reviewing Teaching and Learning Activities within the subjects that I facilitate, in order to present “real-world” challenges (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007, p. 3) and “ill-defined problems” (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007, p. 3) thus encouraging learners to create their own meaning from the learning. ((Biggs, 1996) Now, through an exploration of theories and practices, I understand why I do this.

The Authentic Learning experience has been found to motivate learners to persevere despite initial problems in understanding the objectives or the task itself. As long as the task is aligned to real-world experience, “the social structure and culture that gives the discipline its meaning and relevance”(Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007, p.4) is achieved. The scaffolding of learning (Verenikina, 2003)) undertaken within the subject, allows the construction of learning in a subtle manner until the realisation sets in.

Above all, the Constructive Alignment Model (Biggs, 1996) enables learning which is learner-centric rather than teacher-centric. This model is based on the Constructivist theory (Ferguson, 2007). Learners will construct meaning in learning, based on learning activities which are relevant (aligned) to the outcomes and the assessments. The three components of Instructional Design: Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO); Teaching/Learning Activities (TLA) and Assessment must be aligned if they are to allow learners to engage and construct meaning from the learning (Biggs, 1996). As a Learning Facilitator, my control over the Constructive Alignment of the classes, which I facilitate, is limited to the construction of Learning/Teaching Activities. Both the ILO and the Assessment are pre-set and approved by the University. The challenge of developing activities which are relevant and aligned is further exacerbated by the remote or virtual learning environment and the economic and environmental circumstances, in which learners are currently placed.

Learners who are unmotivated, whose primary incentive currently is to survive, may find difficulties in active engagement within learning activities. To provide a more engaging and constructivist (Ferguson, 2007) learning environment, I have flipped the classroom (Suter & Mangan, n.d.), providing all the set materials online for learners to access and review ahead of classes. In some classes, I have also provided additional case studies in preparation for group problem-solving activities. I can see, via Constructive Alignment, that I need to further review the activities to ensure that these activities are aligned to the ILO and the Assessments (see Appendix 1). I can also see that, by not providing context for learning materials, I ask learners to read without understanding the outcome.

Adjustment of activities needs to be ongoing, as they align not only to the subject but also to the learners and how they learn. Authentic learning must drive the selection of learning activities, so that learners develop skills across all four domains of learning, including the conative domain, which impacts the “capacity to act, decide and commit” (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007, pp. 8-9), It is this domain which determines whether the learner has the will and self-determination to perform at the highest standards of discipline (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007, p. 8).

Many of my current learners seek to be provided with the correct answers and therefore seem resistant to uncertainty and ambiguity, such as the ill-defined problem (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007). This may be a reason for the high incidence of ghostwriting in two of my classes. While the motivations of learners vary, a lack of confidence and poor English language skills may underpin the perceived resistance to active participation in activities. Learners request real-life experience. However, active participation in learning activities based on Authentic Learning should provide an experience of various forms of evaluation which they would experience in the “real-world” outside of the classroom.

A recent activity, which was peer-reviewed, allowed the learners to judge and be judged and it was surprising to find that learners provided lower scores for the outcomes presented by their peers than I did. These learners were excited by the experience as well as the knowledge that was constructed through the activity.

These learning activities challenge me, as learners lead the activities in various directions, allowing their experience to be shared and constructing further knowledge on learning from the experiences of the shared community. Fortunately, there is no expectation that I will answer the difficult questions, as these become the target for further discussion and investigation, usually within the class.

Some students are nearing the end of their degree and have achieved an understanding of their learning style and how to successfully collaborate with others. Their Authentic Learning experiences are further expanding their confidence in being ready for the workforce. A comment at the end of one class, that one of the learners looks forward to this class each week, was echoed by other learners, so this class has achieved the sort of learning environment which allows them to effectively construct their learning. This is by no means Heutagogy (Blaschke, Hase, & Associates, 2019; Hase, 2016), but allowing the learner to direct their learning is Constructivist (Dougiamas, 1998). These learners are moving in the direction of determining their learning (Heutagogy), which I believe they will achieve via their Capstone or further research subjects. It is perhaps, due to concurrently carrying out a small research project, that they have understood not only how they learn, but also how they want to learn.

In the same way, my current learning journey has continually challenged me but allows me to build and construct my learning. I am amazed each week, how a new piece of the puzzle fits and clarifies the story. The proverbial lightbulb seems to come on during and after each class. This lightbulb becomes brighter when considering how to answer the assessment tasks, which demonstrate my learning. The journey towards knowledge is never-ending, and I don’t expect to immediately achieve everything that I need or want to know, however, in what is a class which is obviously constructively aligned, and based on authentic learning, the learning theories, the models, the methods and approaches all make sense and fit well together. This is not to say that I am not struggling to understand and complete all that is provided within the timelines, but via the Authentic Assessments, in which I need to apply the learnings and explain the theories and principles of learning and teaching, I am forced to add meaning, and through meaning comes understanding. The Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998) within this class is not just the online discussion forum, in which we come together in a process of collective learning via weekly discussion tasks. Thankfully, the weekly class sessions also contribute to the Community of Practice (Lesser & Storck, 2001), as we share our learnings, challenges and understanding. This GCLT400 class and Community of Practice “practises what it preaches” (Biggs, 1996, p.360) and thus delivers learning which is constructed by learners through learning activities as are exemplars of learning theory and assessments delivering useable outcomes.

My challenge, now, apart from further learning for myself and learners, is to engage other Learning Facilitators in this course, so that the redevelopment of subjects is based on Constructive Alignment so that the learners completing the GPM suite have had the opportunities to learn and develop their Higher Level Thinking, skills but above all their conative domain. Finally, on a more general level, I have now been stimulated to start a blog and add various aspects of my lifelong learning journey.

References

Barker Caza, B., & Creary, S. (2016). The construction of professional identity. Perspectives on Contemporary Professional Work, 259–285. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783475582.00022

Biggs, J. (1996). Aligning Teaching for Constructing Learning. Journal of Higher Education, 32, 347–364. Retrieved from https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci747s2c/lectures/teaching-through-constructive-alignment.pdf

Blaschke, L. M., Hase, S., & Associates, A. (2019). Heutagogy and digital media networks: Setting students on the path to lifelong learning. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1.

Dougiamas, M. (1998). A Journey into Constructivism. 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MOODLE/M981100D.pdf

Ferguson, R. L. (2007). Constructivism and Social Constructivism. Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education, (1994), 28–49.

Haamer, A., Lepp, L., & Reva, E. (2012). The dynamics of professional identity of university teachers: reflecting on the ideal university teacher. Studies for the Learning Society, 2(2–3), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10240-012-0010-5

Hase, S. (2016). Self-determined Learning (heutagogy): Where have we come since 2000?. Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research. Special edition ….

Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.404.0831

Lombardi, B. M. M., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Authentic Learning for the 21st Century : An Overview. Learning, 1(March), 1–7. Retrieved from http://alicechristie.org/classes/530/EduCause.pdf

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning Theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3

Paszkiewicz, K (2 July 2020). GCLT400: Discussion Board, Thread: 1.1 Activities [Discussion Post]. Retrieved from https://laureate-au.blackboard.com/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_90552_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_154104_1&forum_id=_854718_1&message_id=_2116371_1

Sideeg, A. (2016). Bloom’s Taxonomy, Backward Design, and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development in Crafting Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), 158. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9252

Suter, J., & Mangan, C. (n.d.). Blended , Hybrid , or Flipped Learning : What ’ s Ideal for Your Classroom ?

Verenikina, I. (2003). Understanding Scaffolding and the ZPD in Educational Research. Development, 1968, 8. Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/03pap/ver03682.pdf

Watson, J. B., Gagne, R., & Bruner, J. (2020). Constructivism. 1–16.

Wenger, E. (1998). Community of Practice: a Brief Introduction. Learning in Doing, 15(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2277/0521663636