The Dialectic between Effectiveness and Humanity in the Era of Open Knowledge from the Perspective of Pedagogy
Teaching and learning should involve social issues by which effectiveness and humanity is due consideration as a guideline for sharing and co-creating knowledge. A qualitative method was used after a pioneer study to confirm pre-service teachers’ awareness of open knowledge. There are 17 in-service teacher candidates sampling from 181 schools in Taiwan. Two questions are to resolve: a) How did teachers change their educational ideas, in particular, their attitudes to meet the needs of knowledge sharing and co-creativity; and b) How did they acknowledge the necessity of working out an appropriate way between the educational efficiency and the nature of education for high performance management. This interview investigated teachers’ attitude of sharing and co-creating knowledge. The results show two facts in Taiwan: A) Individuals who must be able to express themselves will be capable of taking part in an open learning environment; and B) Teachers must lead the direction to inspire high performance and improve students’ capacity via knowledge sharing and co-creating knowledge, according to the student-centered philosophy. Collected data from interviewing showed that the teachers were well aware of changing their teaching methods and make some improvements to balance the educational efficiency and the nature of education. Almost all teachers acknowledge that ICT is helpful to motivate learning enthusiasm. Further, teaching integrated with ICT saves teachers’ time and energy on teaching preparation and promoting effectiveness. Teachers are willing to co-create knowledge with students, though using information is not easy due to the lack of operating skills of the website and ICT. Some teachers are against to co-create knowledge in the informational background since they hold that is not feasible for there being a knowledge gap between teachers and students. Technology would easily mislead teachers and students to the goal of instrumental rationality, which makes pedagogy dysfunctional and inhumane; however, any high quality of teaching should take a dialectical balance between effectiveness and humanity.
[1] Anderson, W.T. (1990). Reality isn’t what it used to be. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
[2] Altet, M., Paquay, L., & Perrenoud, P. (2002). Teacher trainers: What professionalization? Bruxelles: De Boek.
[3] Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
[4] Bolker, E.D. & Mast, M. B. (2015). Common sense mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umb.edu/~eb/qrbook/qrbook.pdf
[5] Brooks, J.G. & M.G. Brooks. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[6] Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 16–32. Also, retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf
[7] Bruner, J. (1974). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
[8] Bruner, J. (1999). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[9] Carr, J. & Thompson, B. (2001). Open the minds programme explores freedom on the internet. Retrieved from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ society/politics-policy-people/social-policy/freedom-on-the-internet
[10] Chen, J., Gao, W., & Zheng, P. (2004). Retrospection and adjustment - The current situation of the Act ’No Child Left Behind’. Journal of HU-Nan Normal University Educational Science, 3, 93-96.
[11] D’antoni, S. (2008). Open educational resources: The way forward--deliberations of an international community of interest. San Francisco, CA: UNESCO.
[12] Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice (chapter 7). Bloomington, IN: Indian University. Also retrieved from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/pdf/07.pdf
[13] Emery, F. E. & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32.
[14] Gervais, C. & Molina, C. E. (2005). From the teacher to the practice teacher: Giving access to experience. In: C. Gervais & L. Portelance (Eds.). Knowledge at the core of the teaching profession: Contexts of its construction and modalities of its sharing (pp.411-426). Sherbrook, Canada: Editions du CRP.
[15] Gervais, C. & Portelance, L. (Eds.). Knowledge at the core of the teaching profession: Contexts of its construction and modalities of its sharing. Sherbrook, Canada: Editions du CRP.
[16] Gleitman, H. (1987). Basic psychology. New York, NY: W.W. Norton
[17] Gumport, P. J. & Chun, M. (2005). Technology and higher education: Opportunities and challenges for the new era. In P.G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.) (2005). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 393–424). (2nd Edition). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
[18] Heinemann, M. H. (2005). Teacher-student interaction and learning in on-line theological education. Part I: Concepts and concerns. Christian Higher Education, 4, 183-209. http://dx.doi.orz/10.1080/15363750590959995.
[19] Jackson, L. (2007). The individualist? The autonomy of reason in Kant's philosophy and educational views. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26 (4), 335-344. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-007-9045-3.
[20] Jensen, K. (2013). What is inspirational teaching? Exploring student perceptions of what makes an inspirational teacher. Working Paper, 3, 1–15. Retrieved from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/18265/
[21] Johnston, B., Wetheril, K. & Greenebaum, H. (2002). Teacher socialization: Opportunities for university-school partnerships to improve professional cultures. The High School Journal, 85(4), 29-39.
[22] Jonmanna, K., Nagengasta, B., Schmitzb, B., & Trautweina, U. (2013). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of self-regulated learning and math competence: Differentiation and agreement. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 26-34.
[23] Kajs, L. T. (2002). Framework for designing a mentoring program for novice teachers. Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 10 (1), 57-70. DOI:10.1080/13611260220133153.
[24] Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. P. Guyer & A.W. Wood (trans. & Eds). Critique of pure reason. (Original work published 1781, in English 1992) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[25] Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the learning sciences, 8, 495-497.
[26] Lamy, M. (2002). Procedures for the training of teacher educators: For what professionalization? In: M. Altet, L. Paquay & P. Perrenoud. (Eds.). Teacher trainers: What professionalization (pp. 43-57). Brussels:De Boeck.
[27] Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional design: five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16.
[28] Lin, Y. T., Wen, M. L., Jou, M. & Wu, D.W. (2014). A cloud-based learning environment for developing student reflection abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 244-252.
[29] Liu, T.C. & Wen, S. M. L (2016). Reconsidering teachers’ habits and experiences ubiquitous learning to open knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1194-1200. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.023
[30] Luhmann, N. (1982). The world society as a social system. International Journal of General Systems, 8(3), 131-138.
[31] Marginson, S. (2008). Academic creativity under new public management: Foundations for an investigation. Educational Theory, 58(3), 269–287.
[32] Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2015). The research project on internet using and indulgence. Taipei, Taiwan: MOT, Department of Information and Technology.
[33] Mitros, P. (2014). Comparing effectiveness of learning in MOOCs and classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/blog/comparing-effectiveness-learning-moocs
[34] Morner, M. & von Krogh, G. (2009). A note on knowledge creation in open-source software project: What can we learn from Luhmann’s theory o social systems? Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 431-443.
[35] Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism and college English writing—A case study at DHU. (Doctoral unpublished dissertation) Department of Education, Hebei Normal University.
[36] Murphy, L.M., Shelley, M.A., White, C.J. & Baumann, U. (2011). Tutor and student perceptions of what makes an effective distance language teacher. Distance Education, 32(3), 397-419. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610290.
[37] No Child Left Behind (2003). Retrieved from http://www.middleweb.com/mw/resources/NCLBresources.html,2003-11-20
[38] Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1304e1316.
[39] Peters, M. A., Liu, T. C., and Ondercin, D. (2012). The pedagogy of the open society: Knowledge and the governance of higher education. Boston, MA: Sense.
[40] Peters, M. A., Ondercin, D., & Liu, T. C. (2011). Open learning system: The next evolution of education. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 10, 9-24.
[41] Portelance, L. (2005). Knowledge and training needs of cooperating teachers when implanting curriculum reform. In: G. Colette & L. Portelance (Eds.). Knowledge at the core of the teaching profession: Contexts of its construction and modalities of its sharing (pp.105-128). Sherbrook, Canada: CRP.
[42] Portelance, L. & Durand, N. (2006). Collaborate in a teaching team: A skill to be developed during the practicum session. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 4(2), 77-99.
[43] Roffey, S. (2011). The new teacher’s survival guide to behavior. London, UK: SAGE.
[44] Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501-520.
[45] Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management,3, 262–275.
[46] Tatum, B. & McWhorter, P. (1999). Maybe not everything, but a whole lot you always wanted to know about mentoring. In: P. Graham. (Eds.). Teacher/mentor: A dialogue for collaborative learning (pp. 21-23). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
[47] Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity Pres.
[48] Thompson, J. B. (2011). Shifting Boundaries of public and private life. Theory, Culture and Society, 28(4), 49–70.
[49] Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual framework and an action research program. Journal of Issues in the Quality of Working Life Occasional Paper, 2, 137-146.
[50] Trist, E. & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long wall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.
[51] U.S. Department of Education. (2005). NCLB Overview. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html
[52] Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Abstraction, representation and reflection. In: L. P. Steffe. (Ed.). Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp.153-173). New York, NY: Springer.
[53] Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Constructivism in education. In: T. Husen & N. Postlewaite (Eds.). International encyclopedia of education (p.10). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
[54] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[55] Wen, M. L. (2014). Impacts of post-modern philosophy on education. In Tan, J. M. (Ed.). Postmodern education and its development (pp. 117-142). Taipei. Taiwan: Higher Education.
[56] Wen. S. M.L. (2014). Back to the era of Conditioning Theory? The Case of the Moodle Platform. Information Technology & Software Engineering, 4(1), 1-7.
[57] Wertsch, J. V. (1997). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[1] Anderson, W.T. (1990). Reality isn’t what it used to be. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
[2] Altet, M., Paquay, L., & Perrenoud, P. (2002). Teacher trainers: What professionalization? Bruxelles: De Boek.
[3] Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
[4] Bolker, E.D. & Mast, M. B. (2015). Common sense mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umb.edu/~eb/qrbook/qrbook.pdf
[5] Brooks, J.G. & M.G. Brooks. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[6] Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 16–32. Also, retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf
[7] Bruner, J. (1974). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
[8] Bruner, J. (1999). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[9] Carr, J. & Thompson, B. (2001). Open the minds programme explores freedom on the internet. Retrieved from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ society/politics-policy-people/social-policy/freedom-on-the-internet
[10] Chen, J., Gao, W., & Zheng, P. (2004). Retrospection and adjustment - The current situation of the Act ’No Child Left Behind’. Journal of HU-Nan Normal University Educational Science, 3, 93-96.
[11] D’antoni, S. (2008). Open educational resources: The way forward--deliberations of an international community of interest. San Francisco, CA: UNESCO.
[12] Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice (chapter 7). Bloomington, IN: Indian University. Also retrieved from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/pdf/07.pdf
[13] Emery, F. E. & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32.
[14] Gervais, C. & Molina, C. E. (2005). From the teacher to the practice teacher: Giving access to experience. In: C. Gervais & L. Portelance (Eds.). Knowledge at the core of the teaching profession: Contexts of its construction and modalities of its sharing (pp.411-426). Sherbrook, Canada: Editions du CRP.
[15] Gervais, C. & Portelance, L. (Eds.). Knowledge at the core of the teaching profession: Contexts of its construction and modalities of its sharing. Sherbrook, Canada: Editions du CRP.
[16] Gleitman, H. (1987). Basic psychology. New York, NY: W.W. Norton
[17] Gumport, P. J. & Chun, M. (2005). Technology and higher education: Opportunities and challenges for the new era. In P.G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.) (2005). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 393–424). (2nd Edition). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
[18] Heinemann, M. H. (2005). Teacher-student interaction and learning in on-line theological education. Part I: Concepts and concerns. Christian Higher Education, 4, 183-209. http://dx.doi.orz/10.1080/15363750590959995.
[19] Jackson, L. (2007). The individualist? The autonomy of reason in Kant's philosophy and educational views. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26 (4), 335-344. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-007-9045-3.
[20] Jensen, K. (2013). What is inspirational teaching? Exploring student perceptions of what makes an inspirational teacher. Working Paper, 3, 1–15. Retrieved from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/18265/
[21] Johnston, B., Wetheril, K. & Greenebaum, H. (2002). Teacher socialization: Opportunities for university-school partnerships to improve professional cultures. The High School Journal, 85(4), 29-39.
[22] Jonmanna, K., Nagengasta, B., Schmitzb, B., & Trautweina, U. (2013). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of self-regulated learning and math competence: Differentiation and agreement. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 26-34.
[23] Kajs, L. T. (2002). Framework for designing a mentoring program for novice teachers. Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 10 (1), 57-70. DOI:10.1080/13611260220133153.
[24] Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. P. Guyer & A.W. Wood (trans. & Eds). Critique of pure reason. (Original work published 1781, in English 1992) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[25] Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the learning sciences, 8, 495-497.
[26] Lamy, M. (2002). Procedures for the training of teacher educators: For what professionalization? In: M. Altet, L. Paquay & P. Perrenoud. (Eds.). Teacher trainers: What professionalization (pp. 43-57). Brussels:De Boeck.
[27] Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional design: five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16.
[28] Lin, Y. T., Wen, M. L., Jou, M. & Wu, D.W. (2014). A cloud-based learning environment for developing student reflection abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 244-252.
[29] Liu, T.C. & Wen, S. M. L (2016). Reconsidering teachers’ habits and experiences ubiquitous learning to open knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1194-1200. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.023
[30] Luhmann, N. (1982). The world society as a social system. International Journal of General Systems, 8(3), 131-138.
[31] Marginson, S. (2008). Academic creativity under new public management: Foundations for an investigation. Educational Theory, 58(3), 269–287.
[32] Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2015). The research project on internet using and indulgence. Taipei, Taiwan: MOT, Department of Information and Technology.
[33] Mitros, P. (2014). Comparing effectiveness of learning in MOOCs and classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/blog/comparing-effectiveness-learning-moocs
[34] Morner, M. & von Krogh, G. (2009). A note on knowledge creation in open-source software project: What can we learn from Luhmann’s theory o social systems? Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 431-443.
[35] Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism and college English writing—A case study at DHU. (Doctoral unpublished dissertation) Department of Education, Hebei Normal University.
[36] Murphy, L.M., Shelley, M.A., White, C.J. & Baumann, U. (2011). Tutor and student perceptions of what makes an effective distance language teacher. Distance Education, 32(3), 397-419. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610290.
[37] No Child Left Behind (2003). Retrieved from http://www.middleweb.com/mw/resources/NCLBresources.html,2003-11-20
[38] Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1304e1316.
[39] Peters, M. A., Liu, T. C., and Ondercin, D. (2012). The pedagogy of the open society: Knowledge and the governance of higher education. Boston, MA: Sense.
[40] Peters, M. A., Ondercin, D., & Liu, T. C. (2011). Open learning system: The next evolution of education. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 10, 9-24.
[41] Portelance, L. (2005). Knowledge and training needs of cooperating teachers when implanting curriculum reform. In: G. Colette & L. Portelance (Eds.). Knowledge at the core of the teaching profession: Contexts of its construction and modalities of its sharing (pp.105-128). Sherbrook, Canada: CRP.
[42] Portelance, L. & Durand, N. (2006). Collaborate in a teaching team: A skill to be developed during the practicum session. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 4(2), 77-99.
[43] Roffey, S. (2011). The new teacher’s survival guide to behavior. London, UK: SAGE.
[44] Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501-520.
[45] Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management,3, 262–275.
[46] Tatum, B. & McWhorter, P. (1999). Maybe not everything, but a whole lot you always wanted to know about mentoring. In: P. Graham. (Eds.). Teacher/mentor: A dialogue for collaborative learning (pp. 21-23). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
[47] Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity Pres.
[48] Thompson, J. B. (2011). Shifting Boundaries of public and private life. Theory, Culture and Society, 28(4), 49–70.
[49] Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual framework and an action research program. Journal of Issues in the Quality of Working Life Occasional Paper, 2, 137-146.
[50] Trist, E. & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long wall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.
[51] U.S. Department of Education. (2005). NCLB Overview. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html
[52] Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Abstraction, representation and reflection. In: L. P. Steffe. (Ed.). Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp.153-173). New York, NY: Springer.
[53] Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Constructivism in education. In: T. Husen & N. Postlewaite (Eds.). International encyclopedia of education (p.10). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
[54] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[55] Wen, M. L. (2014). Impacts of post-modern philosophy on education. In Tan, J. M. (Ed.). Postmodern education and its development (pp. 117-142). Taipei. Taiwan: Higher Education.
[56] Wen. S. M.L. (2014). Back to the era of Conditioning Theory? The Case of the Moodle Platform. Information Technology & Software Engineering, 4(1), 1-7.
[57] Wertsch, J. V. (1997). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:72406", author = "Sophia Ming Lee Wen and Chao-Ching Kuo and Yu-Line Hu and Yu-Lung Ho and Chih-Cheng Huang and Yi-Hwa Lee", title = "The Dialectic between Effectiveness and Humanity in the Era of Open Knowledge from the Perspective of Pedagogy", abstract = "Teaching and learning should involve social issues by which effectiveness and humanity is due consideration as a guideline for sharing and co-creating knowledge. A qualitative method was used after a pioneer study to confirm pre-service teachers’ awareness of open knowledge. There are 17 in-service teacher candidates sampling from 181 schools in Taiwan. Two questions are to resolve: a) How did teachers change their educational ideas, in particular, their attitudes to meet the needs of knowledge sharing and co-creativity; and b) How did they acknowledge the necessity of working out an appropriate way between the educational efficiency and the nature of education for high performance management. This interview investigated teachers’ attitude of sharing and co-creating knowledge. The results show two facts in Taiwan: A) Individuals who must be able to express themselves will be capable of taking part in an open learning environment; and B) Teachers must lead the direction to inspire high performance and improve students’ capacity via knowledge sharing and co-creating knowledge, according to the student-centered philosophy. Collected data from interviewing showed that the teachers were well aware of changing their teaching methods and make some improvements to balance the educational efficiency and the nature of education. Almost all teachers acknowledge that ICT is helpful to motivate learning enthusiasm. Further, teaching integrated with ICT saves teachers’ time and energy on teaching preparation and promoting effectiveness. Teachers are willing to co-create knowledge with students, though using information is not easy due to the lack of operating skills of the website and ICT. Some teachers are against to co-create knowledge in the informational background since they hold that is not feasible for there being a knowledge gap between teachers and students. Technology would easily mislead teachers and students to the goal of instrumental rationality, which makes pedagogy dysfunctional and inhumane; however, any high quality of teaching should take a dialectical balance between effectiveness and humanity.", keywords = "Open knowledge, dialect between effectiveness and humanity, pedagogy, critical thinking.", volume = "10", number = "2", pages = "644-8", }
