CONNECTIVIST LEARNING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY RICH SCHOOLS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The South African education policy, the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) envisions the utilisation of ICTs for teaching and learning in all subjects and yet, it is silent on the pedagogical approaches to be employed by teachers, to achieve their learning outcomes using ICTs. In this multiple case study, focus was on four Grade 8 Technology teachers teaching in technology rich (Full ICT) schools in one of the provinces, Gauteng. It sought to understand how they created opportunities for learners to acquire the desired network society skills, to solve real-life or authentic problems and thus prepare them for meaningful participation in the global world. The Guided Blended Connectivist Learning (GBCL) Framework was developed and used to analyse data from teacher interviews, lesson observations, lesson plans and social media. Coding (thematic analysis) was used to analyse data. The literature reviewed reveals constraining factors inherent in the utilisation of ICTs in the South African context, which negatively impact the development of Learner Network Society Skills (LNSS). These include lack of access to connectivity, classroom management skills in the context of ICTs, lack of ICT devices by most learners, inadequate ICT teacher training and support. However, the findings reveal that the Technology teachers in the participating schools shied away from a mechanistic application of existing models and customised teaching and learning approaches to suit their context. Accordingly, teacher professional development programmes should be guided by research findings such as this, to design and equip teachers with appropriate ICT pedagogical skills for the benefit of the achievement of curriculum goals, in the context of utilising ICTs.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
openAccess
Agherdien, N. (2023). Enacting criticality and care. [Special Issue], Cristal Studies in Teaching & Learning, 11(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v11iSI.627
Aguboshim, F. C. (2021). Adequacy of sample size in a qualitative case study and the dilemma of data saturation: A narrative review. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(3), 180-187.
Aldosemani, T. (2019). Inservice teachers' perceptions of a professional development plan based on SAMR model: A case study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, (18)3, 46-53.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Pearson Education Group, Allyn & Bacon.
Castells, M. (Ed.) (2004). The network society: A cross-cultural perspective. Edward Elgar.
Churches, A. (2008). Bloom's taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1-6. https://www.pdst.ie/sites/default/files/BloomDigitalTaxonomy-AndrewChurches.pdf
Dlamini, R. (2022). Factors constraining teacher integration of ICT in Gauteng schools. The Independent Journal of Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 28-43.
Drennan, G., & Moll, I. (2018). A conceptual understanding of how educational technology coaches help teachers integrate iPad affordances into their teaching. The Electronic Journal of eLearning, 16(2), 122-133.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology Integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
Fawns, T. (2019). Postdigital education in design and practice. Postdigital science and education, 1(1), 132-145.
Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy—technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 711-728.
Gauteng Department of Education. (2019, June 10). Education roadmap 2019 – 2024: A discussion document for consultation. https://www.gauteng.gov.za/Publications/PublicationDetails/B7DBCEF4-A0DE-4EEC-8AD6-7A9F13FECA1E
Gibbs, G.R. (2007). Thematic coding and categorising. In G.R. Gibbs (Ed.), Analysing qualitative data. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hackette, A., & Strictland, K. (2018). Using the framework approach to analyse qualitative data: A worked example. Nurse Researcher, 26(2), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2018.e1580
Hurley, S., & Chater, N. (2005). Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science. MIT Press.
Islam, M.A., & Aldaihani, F.M.F. (2022). Justification for Adopting Qualitative Research Method, Research Approaches, Sampling Strategy, Sample Size, Interview Method, Saturation, and Data Analysis. Journal of International Business and Management, 5(1), 1-11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357352896
Kizito, R.N. (2016). Connectivism in learning activity design: Implications for pedagogically based technology adoption in African higher education contexts. International Review of Research in Open Learning & Distributed Learning, 17(2), 19-39.
Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as an action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070801915908
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
Laurillard, D., & Kennedy, E. (2017). The potential of MOOCs for learning at scale in the Global South. Working paper no. 31. Centre for Global Higher Education.
Linneberg, M.S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 7(3), 3351-33514.
Masango, M.M., Van Ryneveld, L., & Graham, M.A. (2022). A paperless classroom: Importance of training and support in the implementation of electronic textbooks in Gauteng public schools. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(3), 336-350.
Minty, R. (2020). The viability of teaching and learning mathematics using information and communication technologies (ICTs) in Gauteng paperless classrooms [PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand].
Msiza, G.M., Malatji, K.S., & Mphahlele, L.K. (2020). Implementation of an e-Learning project in Tshwane South District: Towards a paperless classroom in South African schools. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(4), 300-310. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.003
Mthuli, S. A., Ruffin, F., & Singh, N. (2022). ‘Define, Explain, Justify, Apply’(DEJA): An analytic tool for guiding qualitative research sample size. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(6), 809-821.
Neo, M., Neo, K.T.K., & Lim, S.T.L. (2013). Designing a web-based multimedia learning environment with Laurillard’s Conversational Framework: An investigation on instructional relationships. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 39-50.
Puentedura, R.R. (2009, February 04). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. R. Puentedura's Weblog. Ongoing thoughts on education and technology. http://hippasus.com/blog/archives/25
Rehman, Z.U., & Aurangzeb, W. (2021). The SAMR Model and Bloom’s Taxonomy as a framework for evaluating technology integration at university level. Global Educational Studies Review, VI(IV), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-IV).01
Schunk, D.H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. 6th ed. Pearson.
Senturk, C. (2021). Effects of the blended learning model on preservice teachers’ academic achievements and twenty-first century skills. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10340-y
Shouman, D., & Momdjian, L. (2019). Deeper learning versus surface learning: The SAMR Model to assess e-Learning pedagogy. In R. Jallouli, M.A.B. Tobji, D. Bélisle., S. Mellouli, F. Abdallah & I. Osman (Eds.), Digital economy. Emerging technologies and business innovation. ICDEc 2019 (pp. 230-238). Springer.
Shrivastava, A. (2018). Using connectivism theory and technology for knowledge creation in cross-cultural communication. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 2061. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2061
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-9.
Siemens, G. (2011). Orientation: Sensemaking and wayfinding in complex distributed online information environments [Doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen].
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(3), 28-36.
Thomas, S.D., Hathaway, D.K., & Arheart, K.L. (1992). Face validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 14(1), 109-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394599201400111
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. (2010). Internet skills. Vital assets in an information society [Doctoral thesis, University of Twente].
Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. The International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 15(2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1709