Disruptive Technologies and Peer-learning for Dialogue and Reflection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/ecrpl25-10932Keywords:
Dialogue, Reflection, Online Exchange, Peer-learning, Synchronous/Asynchronous, COIL, Intercultural Dialogue, Disruptive Technologies, Affordances, Intercultural LearningAbstract
This paper presents a study of reflection in online, intercultural dialogues between teacher students from The United States of America and Denmark. The study is based on a Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) exchange between the teacher education programs at University at Albany, SUNY, USA, and University College of Northern Denmark, Aalborg. The COIL project aimed to provide students with cross-cultural perspectives on teaching while fostering reflection about how cultural factors shape educational systems and practice. COIL allows for increased opportunity for the intercultural exchange of ideas without the difficulties of traditional physical exchange. However, it can also potentially decrease experiences of “human” interaction and reflection. Thus, this study explores how online exchange can be structured to create optimal opportunities for peer-learning and reflection. The study’s data is produced through a mixed survey, excerpts from student reflections, comments on the online platform Microsoft Teams, and student interviews. The interviews and the specific student’s reflection assignments formulate three cases that illustrate different approaches to participation in online dialogue and subsequent routes to reflection. The methods of case study and informed grounded theory investigate how the differences between asynchronous and synchronous multimodal exchange impact the students’ experiences of the selected affordances of an online platform as disruptive or non-disruptive, and how this influences their intercultural dialogue and level of reflection. The conclusions from the analysis suggest recommendations for additional scaffolding of online exchanges in future practice as well as themes for further research.
References
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). Understanding and using technological affordances: a response to Boyle and Cook. Research in Learning Technology, 12(3), 12(3), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v12i3.11261
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
Elias, A., & Mansouri, F. (2020). A systematic review of studies on interculturalism and intercultural dialogue. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 41(4), 490–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2020.1782861
Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. I S.P. Robertson, G.M. Olson & J.. Olson (Ed.). Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 79-84). Association for Computing Machinery.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Lawrence Erlbaum
Huber, J. (Ed.). (2012). Intercultural competence for all: Preparation for living in a heterogeneous world (Pestalozzi Series No. 2). Council of Europe Publishing.
Kjærgaard, T. (2016). Utilising digital technology for dialogue and evaluation – a quasi-scholastic method in action. CEPRA-Striben - Tidsskrift for Evaluering i Praksis, (20). https://doi.org/10.17896/UCN.cepra.n20.197
Kjærgaard, T., & Andersen, C. E. M. (2023). Inter-lesson reflections: Learning through interrogative and reflective dialogue. I M. Georgsen, S. Dau, & L. H. Horn (red.), Proceedings for the European Conference on Reflective Practice-based Learning 2023: Aalborg, November 20th-22nd 2023 (s. 65-80). Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Kjærgaard, T., & Georgsen, M. (2021). Reflection, dialogue, and hybrid learnings spaces: Refleksion, dialog og hybride læringsrum. I L. Helverskov Horn, & L. N. Vetner (red.), Proceedings for the European Conference on Reflective Practice-based Learning 2021
Kjærgaard, T., & Wahl, C. (2015). When innovative instructional designs are too innovative: lack of schema. In E. K. Sorensen, A. Szucs, & M. S. Khalid (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1th D4|Learning international Conference Innovations in Digital Learning for Inclusion (pp. 98-105). Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Lee, M. J., & McLoughlin, C. (2007). Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 era: Empowering students through learner-generated content. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(10), 21–34.
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 187–199.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass
Naicker, A., Singh, E., & van Genugten, T. (2022). Collaborative online international learning (COIL): Preparedness and experiences of South African students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(5), 499–510.
Skolnikoff, E. B. (1994). The elusive transformation: science, technology, and the evolution of international politics. Princeton University Press.
Sorensen, E. K., & Kjærgaard, T. (2016). Designing for Dialogue and Digitality in Higher and Continuing Education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Networked Learning , 10, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.54337/nlc.v10.8819
Tartas, V., Baucal, A., & Anne-Nelly, P. (2010). Can you think with me? The social and cognitive conditions and the fruits of learning. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 64–82). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863510
Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage.
Zakaria, A. L., Kjærgaard, T., & Jespersen, A. M. W. (2023). International Online Collaboration as a Refraction Prism for Reflection and Learning? In M. Georgsen, S. Dau, & L. H. Horn (Eds.), Proceedings for the European Conference on Reflective Practice-based Learning 2023 (pp. 149-169). Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
