This article examines the changing face of the curriculum and argues that with the advent of online learning and the widespread use of discussion forums, there is an opportunity for faculty to encourage students to collaboratively reflect on their own teaching experience in their own unique contexts. Moreover, this shift towards greater student participation has become vital so that the range of views and values from an increasingly diverse student population is reflected. In this way it is suggested the traditional notions of curriculum are augmented by the grounded experience of student teacher practice.

It is widely recognised that online learning has the potential to transform the teaching and learning paradigm in tertiary education (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Traditional understandings of the curriculum as the object of study are being challenged as information technology and the widespread use of web 2.0 software transform the way that students engage with learning materials and with one another (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). Technological affordances of greater connectivity, participation and collaboration provide faculty with the opportunity to position the student and not the content at the centre of the learning experience (Siemens, 2008). Moreover, as the student body grows increasingly diverse, the need for a culturally inclusive curriculum design has become a central issue for learning (Hannon & D’Netto, 2007). The adoption of asynchronous discussion forums in formal education can be understood as a means of creating a more inclusive design which grounds the curriculum in the students’ experiences. While the curriculum may stay static over the duration of the course, the way that it is interpreted and shared by students in discussion forums reflects a more dynamic and relevant approach to student learning.

The traditional delivery of the curriculum positions students as receivers of information and imposed meanings through pre-packaged authoritative content such as text books or study guides (Boettcher, 2006). Based on principles of behaviourism, transmission metaphors of education view knowledge as being external to the student and transferrable from one person to another (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell & Haag, 1995). In contrast, a constructivist approach to online learning is based on the notion that individuals construct their own understandings through experience, maturation, and interaction with the environment, especially active interaction with other learners and the instructor (Rovai, 2007). According to this approach knowledge can be conceived differently by each person (Anson & Miller-Cochran, 2009). Therefore, the defining characteristic of an online constructivist learning environment is dialogue which provides learners with opportunities to articulate their ideas, comment on previous postings and reflect on course content (Rovai, 2007). Discussion forums allow for students as a group to negotiate their own understandings and so the focus is not so much on the curriculum as the object, but students’ interpretations of the curriculum based on their own personal experiences in the classroom. This is a very powerful message because it encourages students to regard established theory and concepts as objects to be explored, confirmed, or rejected in the light of experience (Smyth, 1989).

Asynchronous discussion forums have become the most widely adopted tool in online learning and according to Garrison (2003) their use signals a move to “the interactive and constructive potential of asynchronous online learning” (p. 48). Comparing face-to-face with online learning, Swan (2003) found that online discussions are more supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple perspectives, complex understanding and reflection. These knowledge skills can be best elicited from students in lecturer led forums that ask students to reflect on their own teaching experiences (Richardson & Ice, 2010).

A greater disposition to exhibit higher order thinking in asynchronous forums can be partly explained by the time delay between postings which gives participants the opportunity to consider and reflect on their response prior to posting online (Maurino, 2007). In addition, all dialogue in the forums is archived, creating a permanent record of students’ learning which can be referred to as a means of continual reflection (Lea, 2001). The use of discussion forums allows students to mould and shape their own unique knowledge structures in dialogue with their peers. This means that the curriculum is no longer static or unidirectional, but is constantly evolving, adapting and reflecting a range of contemporary student perceptions and discourse. According to this perspective the formal traditional curriculum is being grounded by student voice and real-world experience. Such a trend in participation “harbinger[s] a radical transformation in who learns from whom, where, under what circumstances, and for what and whose purpose” (Haythornthwaite, 2009, p. 1).

Effective use of discussion forums encourages the formation of social networks and relations between people. Haythornwaithe (2009) holds that participation connotes contribution to a community whose presence is vital for the effectiveness of online learning, a view supported in numerous studies (Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007). The forming of community not only has desirable outcomes for affect but also results in a pedagogical shift from focusing on the outcomes of an individual to considering the learning undertaken by the group (Stahl, 2005). Whereas psychological theories of learning focus on the acquisition of knowledge by the individual, a sociocultural approach conceptualises educational environments as social and cultural situations where individuals and groups construct and express their identities. Social learning theories focus on learning that occurs within a social context and involves personal experiences, observations, and interactions with other individuals (Rovai, 2007). Wenger (1998) considers that learning involves participation in a social world where contribution is always based on situated negotiation and renegotiation of meaning in the world. Included in the community are members at varying levels of knowledge from the novice to the expert and part of the learning process is the novice’s socialisation into the group through legitimate peripheral participation. In this way the community as a group evolves and learns, students “create explanations of phenomena that fit their local setting, re- supplying context that is often lost in decontextualised learning, and feeding that information back into the learning environment” (Haythornthwaite, 2009, p. 7).

This move towards incorporating reflection and discourse, says Garrison (2006, p. 25), is “the heart of a meaningful educational experience” and over the past recent decades, the concept of reflection has become a popular and core aspect of the discursive practice of teacher education. The importance of reflection is enshrined in the professional standards for graduating teachers in New Zealand as well as featuring in quality assurance initiatives, course accreditation and teacher selection procedures (Ovens & Tinning, 2009). The origins of the concept of reflective thinking are normally held to derive from Dewey’s notion of pragmatic inquiry which posits that all knowledge and theory are ultimately derived from the reflections and experiences of others whose understanding is influenced by their own context, biography and culture. This implies that since all knowledge claims are contingent, new knowledge can only be learned through experiential learning that nurtures reflection on experience and the systematic testing of ideas. Schön extended this interpretation of experiential learning and argued for the promotion of practitioner-derived knowledge which he regarded as being more trustworthy and relevant than received wisdom (as cited in Smyth, 1989). By utilising discussion forums as a way of encouraging collaborative student reflection, forums become powerful teaching and learning tools as what may be discussed in a forum one day can be applied and put into practice in the practitioner’s classroom the next. In forums where there are a range of viewpoints and anecdotes of the student teachers’ experiences, prospective teachers can best learn how to critically reflect on practice in social contexts where they have the opportunity to discuss practical problems with other teachers of greater and lesser expertise. Such interactions can not only help teachers solve immediate problems but also scaffold them from limited to more complex understanding and knowledge about teaching (Dyke, 2009).

Increases in student and cultural diversity emphasise the necessity for change in the way that the curriculum is viewed. Curriculum can no longer propose to represent the views and experiences of an increasingly heterogeneous student body. It is widely recognised in teacher education that student teachers often bring with them the prejudices and misconceptions of education that they experienced themselves as students (Braun & Crumpler, 2004). Even when exposed to alternative views and concepts, students will often choose to retain outmoded or old fashioned notions of teaching and learning because to change current thinking requires a significant period of readjustment and confusion (O’Loughlin, 1988). In addition, students’ reactions to the social-constructivist learning environments differ depending on their prior experience and communication norms across cultures. Rovai (2007) explains that teachers and students from a dominant culture may not consider how diverse students’ cultural backgrounds affect their way of working on tasks and communication. Catterick (2007) questions whether students from backgrounds where more instructive pedagogies are dominant can adapt to the constructivist approach of online learning.

Increased cultural diversity implies a much wider range of opinions and backgrounds meaning that many of the assumptions and strategies that have been made on the part of the curriculum may run counter to the expectations of students from diverse cultures (Catterick, 2007). Pincas (2001) noted that students entering into professional education in a multicultural context not aligned with their culture can experience significant conflict. This is supported by Edmundson’s (2009) claim that “e-learning courses are cultural artefacts, embedded within the cultural values, preferences, characteristics, and nuances of the culture that designed them, and inherently creating challenges for learners from other cultures” (Cultural accessibility). This places greater emphasis on the instructional providers to be acutely aware of their own culture since their world views cannot be separated from the training that they develop (Parrish & Linder- VanBerschot, 2010). For example one of the principal drivers in the New Zealand early childhood curriculum is the fundamental belief in the role of free play for the child and the facilitating role of the teacher (Ministry of Education, 1996). This runs counter to many assumptions made by individuals who belong to cultures that have a tradition in transmission types of teaching that suppose the teacher to be the source of knowledge, and the teacher’s role to pass on that knowledge to their students (Hofstede, 1986). Because of the cultural divide, a curriculum that has been devised without awareness of how views and values are culturally specific may not take into account other students’ difficulty in getting to grips with underlying principles and concepts that drive such an approach in education.

However, in discussion forums this can be made the topic of discussion and learning can be enhanced through a consideration of context, experience and reflection on what the text books articulate and what the student teachers own thoughts. In this context aspects of learning are rooted in social interaction and contextually bound by the participants’ own ability to contribute. Online learning acknowledges a theoretical move away from focusing on the individual’s cognitive development and recognises the importance of social interaction. Interactive features that allow for Dewey-like reflection and group construction of knowledge are the new curriculum. Through support for these learning activities, the students are grounding the curriculum.

References

• Anson, C. M., & Miller-Cochran, S. K. (2009). Contrails of learning: Using new technologies for vertical knowledge-building. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 38-48.
• Boettcher, J. V. (2006). The rise of student performance content. Campus Technology. Retrieved July 8, 2010, from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2006/02/the-rise-of-student-performance-content.aspx
• Braun, J. A., & Crumpler, T. P. (2004). The social memoir: An analysis of developing reflective ability in a pre-service methods course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 59-75.
• Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (2nd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.
• Catterick, D. (2007). Do the philosophical foundations of online learning disadvantage non-Western students? In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-Learning Cultural Challenges (pp. 116-129). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
• De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28.
• Dyke, M. (2009). An enabling framework for reflective learning: Experiential learning and reflexivity in contemporary modernity. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(3), 289-310.
• Edmundson, A. (2009). Culturally accessible e-learning: An overdue global business imperative. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from http://www.astd.org/lc/2009/0509_edmundson.html
• Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction (pp. 47-58). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
• Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25-34.
• Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9.
• Hannon, J., & D’Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online: Student engagement with learning technologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 418-432.
• Haythornthwaite, C. (2009). Participatory transformations. In W. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Ubiquitous Learning (pp. 31-48). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
• Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320.
• Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
• Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139-154.
• Lea, M. (2001). Computer conferencing and assessment: New ways of writing in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 163-182.
• Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, J. C., & Lee, S. H. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24.
• Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-43.
• Marcos, J. J. M., Miguel, E. S., & Tillema, H. (2009). Teacher reflection on action: What is said (in research) and what is done (in teaching). Reflective Practice, 10(2), 191-204.
• Maurino, P. S. M. (2006-2007). Looking for critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 241- 260.
• McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalisation, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27.
• Ministry of Education. (1996). Te whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō nga okopuna o Aotearoa/ Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
• O’Loughlin, M. (1988). Reconceptualising educational psychology to facilitate teacher empowerment and critical reflection. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Association for Teacher of Educational Psychology, Bloomington, IN.
• Ovens, A., & Tinning, R. (2009). Reflection as situated practice: A memory-work study of lived experience in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1125-1131.
• Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. A. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. International Review of Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 1-19.
• Pincas, A. (2001). Culture, cognition and communication in global education. Distance Education, 22(1), 30-51.
• Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 52-59.
• Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77-88.
• Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Presented at Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm
• Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2-9.
• Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 77-90.
• Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13-45). Needham, MA: Sloan Centre for Online Education.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identify. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.