Constructing knowledge: An effective use of educationaltechnology for teaching Islamic studies in the UK

Ayla Göl

Published online: 24 June 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The 21st century as a digital age is characterized by the increasedaccessibility of information and knowledge through the medium of sophisticatedtechnological tools. The main aim of this article is to show how educationaltechnology can be used effectively to help students construct knowledge whenteaching Islamic studies in the UK. The first part of this paper summarizes thedifferences between information sharing and knowledge construction with referenceto the essence of knowledge as Aristotelian ‘episteme’ (theoretical knowledge) andtechnê (practical knowledge: know-how); and the extent which the former process iscreated by the use of Information Technology (IT) while the latter is enhanced byEducational Technology (ET). The second part explores how ET can be usedeffectively to ‘provide training in critical and creative thinking skills of students’ asan integral part of producing useful tools and generating practical benefit duringtheir learning process (Felder et al. 2000, p. 26; Callaos 2009, p. 3). The third, then,explains why a student centred and research-based teaching is preferred to traditionalresearch-led method in order to support the construction of knowledge. The paperconcludes by presenting some reflections and limitations on how effective use of ETand research-based teaching can help students to become critical thinkers whilestudying Islam and Middle Eastern politics as part of international politicscurriculum in the UK.

Keywords Educational technology . Information technology . Episteme . Technê .

Constructing knowledge . Critical thinking and Islamic studies

The 21st century as a digital age is characterised by the increased accessibility ofinformation and knowledge through the medium of sophisticated technological tools.

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416DOI 10.1007/s10639-011-9165-9

A. Göl (*)Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Contemporary Political Violence (CSRV),Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Penglais, Aberystwyth,Wales, UK SY23 3FEe-mail: ayg@aber.ac.uk

One of the most contested issues related to teaching in higher education in socialsciences over the last few years is influenced by the increase in the use of technologyin almost every aspect of teaching and learning activities. The more each newgeneration becomes familiar with computers and the use of web-based sources themore their expectations from higher education increase. For instance, in the UK,Becta, which is the now-defunct government agency for the ‘effective andinnovative use of technology’ in learning, published research showing that ‘[n]ationally, 82% of learners have access to Internet-connected computers in theirhomes’ (Davies and Good 2009, p. 6). There has been an increasing literature on thissubject since the late 1990s. As Barzilai and Zohar argue, many ‘educators point outthat one of the goals of the educational system in the information age should be toprepare students for taking an independent and responsible role in the informationsociety’ (Barzilai and Zohar 2008, p. 35). Furthermore, students need to ‘acquire theskills necessary for coping critically and effectively with large amounts ofinformation from a wide range of sources’ (Barzilai and Zohar 2008, p. 35; Owston1997; Breivik 1998; Land and Greene 2000; Slotta and Linn 2000; Salomon 2000a,b; Law et al. 2005; Strang 2010).

The main aim of this article is to show how educational technology can be usedeffectively to help students construct knowledge when teaching Islamic studies in theUK. The first part of this paper summarises the differences between informationsharing and knowledge construction; and the extent which the former process iscreated by the use of Information Technology (IT) while the latter is supported byEducational Technology (ET). The second part explores how ET can be usedeffectively to ‘provide training in critical and creative thinking skills of students’ asan integral part of producing useful tools and generating practical benefit duringtheir learning process (Felder et al. 2000, p. 26; Callaos 2009, p. 3). The third, then,explains why a student centred and research-based teaching is preferred to traditionalresearch-led method in order to support the construction of knowledge. The paperconcludes by presenting some reflections and limitations on how effective use of ETand research-based teaching can help students to become critical thinkers whilestudying Islam and Middle Eastern politics as part of international politicscurriculum in the UK.

1 Constructing knowledge vs. sharing information

In the information age, many educators in higher education face a dilemma inusing new education and information technologies over traditional methods forteaching and learning purposes. Such a dilemma is usually determined by agenerational gap, personal preferences for traditional or modern ways of teachingand the specific requirements of various academic disciplines (Barzilai and Zohar2008, p. 36). For instance, in social sciences, before the turn to the 21st centurymany lecturers were familiar only with rather limited technological tools in theform of visual aids (overhead projects and handouts) etc. These were used as partof traditional methods of transmitting knowledge in my previous institutions inAustralia, England and Turkey before I started teaching in Wales. The first teacher-training programme, which I had to attend as a post-graduate teaching assistant in a

400 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

British higher education institution in 2000, was rather inefficient to understand thecomplex connections between teaching and learning in the information age. At thattime, the first book advised to consult was Preparing to Teach: An Introduction toEffective Teaching in Higher Education, by Gibbs and Habeshaw (1989).Interestingly enough, this book had one chapter on ‘using visual aids’ thatexplained the benefits of using handouts and overhead projectors for effectiveteaching (Gibbs and Habeshaw 1989, pp. 117–130). Moreover, there was no directreference to either IT or ET. Within the last two decades, the spread of digitalrevolution has been faster than anyone could predict that it is almost impossible tofind a book with no reference to either educational technologies or e-Learning.This fast advance of technology, and the spread of e-Learning as a ‘web-basedsystem that makes information or knowledge available for users and learners’present a new challenge to educators that there are no fixed methods of teachingand characteristics of a learning environment in the 21st century (Işık and Yılmaz2011, p. 71).

As Long and White argue, in particular, the invention of ‘the internet hasfacilitated the knowledge sharing and collaborations across the globe’ (2010, p.318). In a digital age of the 21st century, it is evident that the new generation ofstudents are more technologically oriented and they frequently use internet-basedsearch engines, such Google, Yahoo, and Wikipedia when acquiring information.Therefore, students’ increased dependency not only on computers, smart mobilephones, MP3 players and iPods/iPhones/iPads but also, more importantly, on theeasy access to web-based information and knowledge force educators to re-consider their traditional teaching methods and be up-to-date in accordance withstudent expectations. However, the internet age has its advantages and disadvan-tages: on the one hand, students can retrieve information in a ‘keystroke’ (Salomon2000a, b, p. 46); and on the other, they have to shift through numerous documentsand web-pages most of which are ‘unrelated to user’s quest’ and, more importantly,unreliable information ‘as far as their content is concerned’ (Wallace et al. 2004, p.273). It seems that both students and teachers need to be guided to retrieve‘information and knowledge’ from reliable electronic sources and becometechnologically-enhanced and computer-friendly researchers in the current infor-mation society.

According to a research based on semi-structured interviews with academicresearchers, the majority of the researchers (18 out of 24, or 75%) think that‘computers created essential changes in their research’ (Barzilai and Zohar 2008,p. 42). Moreover, as Biggs argues, the development of IT put teachers and theirinstitutions under enormous pressure to harness this progress not only to improvethe quality of teaching but also ‘enable their universities to sell their educationalwares on the other side of the world’ (Biggs 2003, p. 213). While Biggs does notattempt to identify what information implies Barzilai and Zohar makes a very cleardistinction between information and knowledge. In their analysis, while ‘informa-tion’ consists of facts, concepts, ideas or procedure ‘knowledge is a web or anetwork made of connections between pieces of information’ (2008, p. 38). Acomparison between information and knowledge illustrates their implications foreducational purposes. According to Barzilai and Zohar’s comparison of informa-tion and knowledge (2008, p. 38), while information is ‘discrete’ and its

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 401

presentation calls for clarity knowledge is usually ‘arranged in meaningful mentalwebs and networks’ that its presentation calls for ‘conflict or ambiguity’.Information may be ‘transmitted from teachers to students’ and it is usuallyimpersonal but knowledge is non-transmittable. ‘Information acquisition ismanifested in its reproduction (or retrieved) from memory’. However, as Biggsalso argues, knowledge is constructed by students and ‘always contextualised’ asopposed to information, which ‘does not necessarily require a context’ (Biggs2003, p. 213). Furthermore, acquisition of knowledge is manifested by novelapplications (Barzilai and Zohar 2008, p. 38). The differences between informationand knowledge in the digital age, in fact, have important implications for teachingand learning activities (See Fig. 1). According to Biggs, knowledge is ‘created bythe student’s learning activities, their approaches to learning’ (emphasis in theoriginal). He argues that ‘the student creates knowledge—call it “constructingknowledge” or “constituting knowledge” as you will—so that knowledge is noimposed or transmitted by direct instruction’. In his theoretical understanding, this‘means “constructivism”, with its emphasis on what students have to do, ratherthan how they represent knowledge’ (Biggs 2003, p. 13).

As Fig. 1 indicates, while the construction of knowledge puts the student at thecentre of learning activities, information sharing is teacher-centred. Based onBigg’s definition, the construction of knowledge is taken one level further here byapplying the identification of knowledge as Aristotelian ‘epistêmê (theoreticalknowledge; knowing-what in Ryle’s terms) and technê (craft or practicalknowledge: know-how in Ryle’s distinction)’ (Parry 2003; Fenstermacher 2005 inCallaos 2009, p. 4).

Hence, this paper attempts to synthesise Bigg’s definition of ‘constructingknowledge’ with Aristotelian identification of different categories of knowledge.Based on this synthesis, it is argued that the aims of educators in social sciencesshould reflect their preferences for the construction of knowledge with referenceto epistêmê and technê rather than the acquisition of information. The ‘ownership’of information in the technological age can only make sense when it iscontextualised ‘through process of integration, connection-making,’ and, therefore,

Information is owned by students. Information is not always contextualised. Information is usually retrieved from memory.

Knowledge is constructed by students. Knowledge is always contextualised. Knowledge is usually arranged in meaningful mental webs and networks.

Information consists of facts, concepts and ideas. Information is usually transmitted from teachers to students.

Knowledge is created through making connections between pieces of information. Knowledge cannot be transmitted from teachers to students.

Learning Activities

Teacher centred Student centred

Teaching Activities

Fig. 1 Implications of sharing information and constructing knowledge for teaching and learning activities

402 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

creating knowledge (Barzilai and Zohar 2008, p. 49). Through a personal journeyof developing my faculty of cognition in teaching in higher education institutionsTurkey, England, and Wales I had similar experiences. After graduating from theFaculty of Political Science in Ankara University, I began my teaching career as aresearch and teaching assistant in Turkey, where the system is based onapprenticeship. Within this system, basic training on how to teach in a universitywas not institutionalised. It was necessary to develop my own skills and strategiesas my experience of teaching progressed. This very challenging process made meaware of the disadvantages of certain traditional teaching practices from an earlystage in my teaching experience in higher education. In the traditional system,teaching was carried out through weekly, compulsory large-group lectures. Unlikethe model generally employed by many universities in the UK, lectures were notcomplimented by small-group seminar teaching. This mode of teaching places thelecturer at the heart of teaching practices, and it has serious weaknesses.Specifically, this mode of large-group lecturing relies on monologue andinformation is transmitted by direct instruction. Moreover, this type of teachingdoes not encourage engagement with students; rather it tends to hand down tostudents unequivocal facts and figures, discouraging engagement. I recollect that asan undergraduate student I used to find the majority of those lectures uninspiringand unhelpful in constructing my own knowledge. These early experiences wereparticularly influential in my endeavour to avoid any orthodox method of teaching,which does not assist students to construct their own knowledge. Hence, this articlereflects my search for alternative teaching methods to support students’ learningexperience and is based on my conviction that the construction of knowledge is anessential element of developing the critical and creative thinking skills of students.There are two dimensions to this: constructing knowledge, on the one hand,requires making connections between theoretical knowledge—epistêmê—and real-world events—technê; and on the other, the construction of knowledge is enhancedby novel applications—i.e. the use of technology for educational purposes (ET). Inorder to make learning motivational for students and support them in constructingknowledge I have developed 3 key objectives in my teaching practice: theinnovative use of ET in accordance with the institutional e-Learning teachingstrategy; and the efficient use of e-Portfolios for formative assessment and effectivefeedback as part of the UK Professional Standard Framework; and ‘research-based’teaching that encourages students’ active participation, independent research andinquiry-based learning.

In addition, all three objectives are designed to help students in understandingthe complexity of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, which has been designateda ‘strategically important’ subject area by the British Government. In 2004, theSecretary of State sought advice from Higher Education Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE) in order to identify any strategically important highereducation subjects or courses. HEFCE designated the following subjects as both‘strategically important and vulnerable’: a) science, technology, engineering andmathematics; b) ‘area studies and related minority languages including Arabicand Turkish language studies and other Middle Eastern area studies, formerSoviet Union Caucasus and central Asian area studies’; c) quantitative socialscience; d) modern foreign languages (HEFCE 2011). The new courses I designed

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 403

to teach—‘Religion and Politics in the Middle East’, and ‘Islam, Foreign Policyand the Developing World’ aimed to expand the departmental curriculum ininternational politics to the ‘strategically important’ subject areas. The initialchallenge was how to incorporate ET into my teaching in order to encouragestudents’ high-level cognitive and critical engagement with the ‘strategicallyimportant’ subject areas of Islamic and Middle Eastern area studies. (Wallace et al.2004, p. 271).

2 Effective use of educational technology for constructing knowledge

Knowledge is essentially constructed by students. In Aristotelian methods, differentcategories of knowledge exist as epistêmê and technê that implies the process ofpractically knowing how to apply theoretical knowledge to practical issues and real-world events rather than only engaging with pure reason and abstract philosophicaldebates. The technological progress in the 21st century forces educators to developnew teaching methods within which the old categories of knowledge are addressedby the new tools of technology for educational purposes (ET). As Biggs draws ourattention to the fact that

We are concerned with educational technology (ET) not informationtechnology (IT). ET has great potential in helping us reach our educationalaims and objectives; in managing learning, in engaging students in appropriatelearning activities, in assessing learning and in enabling off-campus learning(Biggs 2003, p. 213).

Hence, the use of technology is not about presenting more and more information.Such a process can lead to information overload. In the case of IT, the emphasis on‘information’ before ‘technology’ implies that our main concern is solely‘information. In the case of ET, the word ‘education’ comes before ‘technology’by reflecting that teachers in higher education should not limit themselves to ‘theinformation-handling facility of electronic technology’ (Biggs 2003, p. 214). ET canbe used effectively for not only constructing knowledge, but also combiningtheoretical/abstract and practical/empirical knowledge as classified by Aristotelianepistêmê and technê . Furthermore, there were two important reasons behind mysearch for innovative methods and approaches to teaching Islam and Middle Easternpolitics in international relations:

Firstly, as explained earlier, the search for alternative teaching methods has been aresult of personal dissatisfaction with traditional ways of teaching and learning in myprevious institutions. In accordance with the spread of technological tools in theinformation age, the use of ET was incorporated into teaching methods of my newundergraduate module, IP39520 Islam, Foreign Policy and the Developing World,for the first time in Aberystwyth University in the first semester of 2008/2009. It wasan optional module for the second and the third year students, and 77 studentsenrolled in the course. Based on Biggs’s classification, three functions and examplesof ET—managing learning, information storage and presentation, and assessmenttool—were chosen in order to encourage students for constructing knowledge andadopting a ‘deep’ and ‘critical’ approach to learning (See Fig. 2; Biggs 2003, p. 227).

404 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

In the module handbook, students were implicitly informed that the teaching methodof this module was based on the use of ET.

Secondly, the most important reason behind this innovative search was the studentfeedback. As part of the regular process of collecting and considering studentfeedback, I continuously reflect on their suggestions in order to explore how myteaching can be improved and I can better transmit my knowledge to my students(Biggs 2003, p. 6). At the early stages of my teaching, students were regularly askedto evaluate my teaching method, which was initially based on the traditional lecturingmode, supported by the distribution of a one-page handout. In general, the majorityof students (65 out of 68, or 95% strongly agree, agree and partially agree—seeTable 1) indicated that I put too ‘much information’ into my lectures that this caused‘information overload’. This, in turn, made it difficult for students to form opinionsand engage with ideas. They found the use of additional technological tools such asPowerPoint (99%), web-links (98%) and video clips from different media sources(97%) helpful in understanding lectures.

As Table 1 indicates, the data analysis of student informal feedback supportsBiggs’ claims about the potential use of ET in managing learning and engagingstudents in appropriate teaching and learning activities. In specific, there are fivefunctions and examples of the effective use of ET (Biggs 2003, p. 227): managinglearning on Blackboard and web pages; information storage and presentation onBlackboard and web based sources; interactive tools such as simulations, virtualenvironments, bulletin boards, Knowledge Forum, and electronic voting; assess-ment tools and finally ‘off-campus’ tools such as telephone, tele- and video-conferencing (synchromous) and all web-based sources (asynchromous). Assummarised in the previous Fig. 3 of these functions were incorporated into myteaching methods.

Table 1 Student feedback on the use of educational technology

Student Feedback (%) Strongly Agree Agree Partially Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Use of PowerPoint 91 8 – 1 –

Use of Web Sources 76 14 8 1 1

Use of Video clips 77 15 5 2 1

Use of ‘too much’ information 90 3 2 3 2

(Students responses to an informal module questionnaire—68 students participated in total)

Functions of Educational Technology

Managing learning (WebCT, Blackboard and e-mail)

Information Storage (Blackboard, e-sources, PowerPoint and video

clips)

Assessment Tool (e-Portfolio on Grade Centre of

Blackboard)

Fig. 2 Effective use of educational technology

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 405

The first function of ET was about ‘managing learning’ that includes thefollowings: ‘Blackboard, web pages presenting access to university, department,programme information; online enrolment; communications; bulletin boards’ (Biggs2003, p. 227). Hence, the key function of ET was based on the interactive use ofBlackboard and web sources. Students were instructed that they must check theiremails and the module Blackboard site regularly. The module handbook, lecturehandouts, additional reading material, electronic resources, office hours, and anychange to timetable details were posted on Blackboard. I specifically emphasised theimportance of using email as part of interactive communication.

The second function of ET that I identified was ‘information storage andpresentation’. This requires an effective use of Blackboard, e-books, e-journals,search engines as well as non web-based information sources such as PowerPointand videos. Hence, the use of ET as an example of information storage andpresentation was incorporated into teaching in three ways: first, the reading andlearning material was supported by web-based e-sources so that students would not‘waste’ their time searching for unrelated and unreliable information (Barzilai andZobar 2008, p. 36). Second, the lecturing method was supported by the use ofPowerPoint presentations. The process of giving handouts to students was radicallychanged from a one-page handout to distributing PowerPoint presentations thatshowed links to web-sources. Furthermore, the lecture handouts were synchronizedwith PowerPoint presentations and included visual objects (maps, pictures, diagramsetc). They were stored in the course information folder to make them available forstudents on Blackboard. Third, as a non web-based source, students are shown videoclips during lectures and each student had an option to choose a video to watch fromthe list at the beginning of the semester. Students were asked to write a 500-wordcritique of the video for seminar discussions.

The last function of ET was related to ‘assessment tools’ which refers tospecific ‘item bank, either commercial or teacher produced Open-ended:Knowledge Forum and bulletin boards generally, web-pages, ideal for self-, peeras well as teacher assessment’ (Biggs 2003, p. 227). In accordance with this, anadditional assessment method—the student e-learning portfolio (e-Portfolio)—wasintroduced. An individual e-Portfolio was allocated to each student on GradeCentre of Blackboard. How to manage an e-Portfolio was explained in the firstseminar and students were given clear instructions in the module handbook. The e-Portfolios were graded as part of seminar participation, and it was worth 10% ofthe final overall mark. In order to enhance student learning, all students wereexpected to participate in seminar discussions actively. As part of the ‘interactiveuse of ET’, at least two or three of the assigned readings for each week must beread in advance of the seminar, and one of the seminar discussion questions have tobe answered by the previous night via email. In each seminar, a number of studentswill be asked to present a summary and a critique of readings that will contribute tothe outcomes of their e-Portfolio for the module.

Students were instructed clearly how to complete this process that each entry inlearning portfolio should contain the following:

(a) The seminar date, topic and student’s seminar group;

406 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

(b) The author and title of the books, chapters or articles student read as preparation;(c) The students were advised to use succinct and coherent sentences to answer at

least two or three of the seminar discussion questions. Students could choosewhich questions to answer depending on their readings.

(d) Students had to write what s/he found difficult or confusing and/or what s/hefound most interesting or particularly informative in his/her readings.

A 500-word short essay was sufficient for each entry. The final portfolio entryshould reflect on the module as a whole, as well as the final session.

How to manage e-Portfolios was also explained in detail and thendemonstrated by asking a volunteer in the first session. Students liked the ideaof submitting their e-Portfolios on the virtual learning environment (VLE)without dealing with the difficulties of paper submissions and being in thecampus physically. They had the flexibility of submitting their e-Portfoliosanytime and from anywhere ‘off-campus’ as long as they were connected toBlackboard. Setting up this system and managing the process required a trainingsession that I as the lecturer had to attend at the Staff Development course and,particularly, the use of Blackboard session.

After their submissions, students then were able to get feedback from theirteachers the latest by the end of week. Interested and more seriously engagedstudents had the opportunity to contact the teacher if they still had question or theydid not understand the feedback. Meanwhile, I constantly gathered feedback fromstudents and peers through teaching observations to assess the impacts of the use ofET on student learning. Feedback to assess the impact of the use of e-Portfolios onstudent learning has been very positive (45 out of 48 students or 94% strongly agree,agree and partially agree—See Fig. 3 and Appendix 1, Question 3).

Furthermore, the following additional feedback was received from students aboutthe unprecedented consequences and advantages of using e-Portfolios:

i) the effective and fast feedback to students;ii) immediate electronic communication between teacher and student;iii) evidence of progress for each student individually;iv) provide a summary of each week’s discussion questions ready for exam

revision purposes; andv) encourage shy students, who are not confident enough to contribute during

seminar discussions, for building self-confidence throughout the semester due toregular readings and exercises of writing e-Portfolios.

0

5

10

15

20

StronglyAgree

Agree PartiallyAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Student ResponseFig. 3 Student feedback on theuse of e-Portfolio

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 407

In this innovative method of assessment, all students were expected toconstruct their own knowledge and an in-depth analysis of their particularcountry’s foreign policy making process and policies, gathering data as theyprogressed. This was an independent piece of research, theoretically informed bythe content of the module. Hence, students were encouraged to take responsi-bility to ‘lead research’ and ‘construct knowledge’. Students were also motivatedthat if they were able to develop a critically articulated theory at the end of themodule they would be granted higher marks for this portion of the assessment. Inthis way, students were motivated develop critical and deep learning skills ratherthan being passive audience in lectures. As Jaques argues, traditional assessmentmethods that ‘emphasize recall or the use of simple, standard procedures’ and/orserve as a ‘threatening and anxiety provoking’ process produce surface learning(Jaques 2000, p. 59). By submitting the e-Portfolios for each seminar, studentswere introduced to a complex learning process that helped them—particularly shystudents—to become more confident, overcome their anxieties and thereforeenhance the quality of their ‘deep learning’ (Jaques 2000, p. 60).

In the end, the outcome of this innovative method was very encouraging, in thatmy students achieved the highest percentage of overall grades (61.12%) for mycourse (IP39520) when compared to any of the other courses run in the departmentat the end of the semester (See Table 2) and both the second and external markerswere extremely complimentary about student achievement in this module despite thefact that it was a new module and run for the first time.

Table 2 Student overall achievement

Module code No. Students 0–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 60–69 70–79 80+ Average

GW33820 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 56.6

GW38820 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 63

GW39420 6 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 64

IP30220 135 13 3 6 11 55 24 0 56.43

IP31820 51 4 0 4 8 12 1 0 52.39

IP32120 58 3 2 3 7 19 4 0 55.16

IP32220 53 2 1 0 5 24 9 1 60.48

IP32720 28 4 1 2 2 8 1 0 51.42

IP33620 84 3 4 3 13 30 1 0 54.98

IP33820 46 0 1 2 1 24 6 0 60.59

IP35220 50 1 3 3 1 28 7 0 59.14

IP35320 67 3 3 8 5 24 8 0 55.62

IP35920 12 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 59.5

IP36020 82 5 1 4 8 23 0 0 54.08

IP38420 40 2 0 0 4 11 3 0 57.33

IP38820 56 1 2 1 5 26 4 0 57.18

IP39420 26 1 0 1 3 12 2 0 56.58

IP39520 77 3 2 3 6 35 13 2 61.12

408 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

Both feedback and evidence support the argument that alternative teachingmethods and technology-enhanced teaching can be effective when studying theMiddle East and Islam in the UK higher education context. Furthermore, the beststudent essays written for this module were published in student run electronicjournals and a few of them have now decided to continue their studies at the post-graduate level. This unprecedented consequence helped me to realise the importanceof ‘research-based’ teaching that I introduce next.

3 In search of an alternative teaching and learning method: A student centredand research-based teaching

As indicated earlier, the use of ET was based on personal dissatisfaction withtraditional ways of teaching and learning which led me to search for alternative andtechnology-enhanced methods. In search of new teaching methods I introduced thefollowing further changes: first, research-led teaching was changed to research-basedteaching; second, the traditional ways of lecturing was replaced by a blended methodof teaching and third, new methods of assessment (teamwork) were added totraditional assessment methods (essay and exam).

Firstly, my current institution is a research-led teaching university and Iinitially thought that this would be enough to teach my new modules on MiddleEastern politics and Islamic studies. As developed by Griffiths (2004), research-led teaching is understood in general as the method of teaching through whichstudents learn about research findings. In research-led teaching, the curriculumcontent is structured by faculty or departmental research interests, and the contentselected is directly based on the ‘specialist’ research interests of teaching staff;additionally teaching is based on a traditional ‘information transmission’ model(Jenkins et al. 2007, p. 28).

In traditional methods, teaching is carried out through the uni-linear transfer ofinformation from lecturer to students in large lecture rooms. This usually allowsstudents to take notes without questioning. There is neither any engagementbetween the lecturer and students nor any attempt to initiate critical thinking.This can be unproductive. Students are usually expected to take notes in lecturesrather than participating actively in the learning process. There is agreement inthe literature that ‘writing things down is not necessarily linked to productivelearning or deep thinking’ and it does not help students to develop critical andcreative skills during their learning experience (Race and Brown 1998, p. 21).The main method of assessment is based exclusively on a written or an oral end-of-module exam in some cases. The expected mode of demonstrating knowledge usedto be rote learning and recital based on lecture notes. Students were given nooption but memorization of information and facts that again minimised criticalthinking (Wallace et al. 2004, p. 272). One might argue that, as Biggs highlights,the mode of memorisation does not necessarily imply a surface approach tolearning but an analytical engagement with the teaching material must be assuredto enhance critical and ‘deep thinking’ (2003, p. 14).

However, the research-led teaching is not the only method and there are threeadditional categories in the teaching-research nexus (Jenkins et al. 2007: 29).

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 409

First, as explained earlier, in ‘research-led’ teaching the curriculum is structuredaround teaching research content and teaching methods are not necessarily studentcentred. Second, ‘research-tutored’ teaching emphasises learning focused onstudents’ participation in writing and discussing papers or essays. Third,research-based teaching indicates that students as participants are undertakinginquiry-based learning and, therefore, it is student focused. Fourth, the ‘research-oriented’ curriculum emphasises processes of knowledge construction in thesubject. While research-led and research-tutored methods of teaching put theemphasis on research content and are teacher-focused with students as theaudience, the research-based and research-oriented methods particularly focus onresearch processes and problems by involving students as participants (Jenkins etal. 2007, p. 29).

According to this classification, the first two requirements of traditional research-led teaching were automatically addressed while designing new modules in myearlier teaching; namely, the curriculum content was structured by research interestsin the Department of International Politics and the module content was directlybased on my expertise and specialist research interests. However, it became clear thattraditional research-led teaching methods were unproductive in studying Islam, achallenging and unfamiliar subject in international relations departments in Westernuniversities until the 9/11 terrorists attacks. As explained earlier with reference totraditional ways of teaching, research-led teaching in particular, does neitherencourage any engagement between the lecturer and students nor has any attemptto initiate critical thinking during the uni-linear transfer of knowledge from lecturerto students. Hence, research-led teaching does not necessarily helps students to leadindependent research and construct knowledge when studying ‘strategicallyimportant’ and challenging subject areas of Islamic studies. It was evident in formaland informal student feedback that although students appreciated my enthusiasm andexpertise in Islam and Middle Eastern politics, it was clear that the traditional way ofresearch-led teaching was not helpful because it was not student centred (See Table 1& Fig. 3). Reflecting upon this feedback and my own teaching experience, I optedfor research-based teaching and a more student-focused approach as opposed to thetraditional research-led teaching, as Table 3 exhibits.

Secondly, the traditional ways of research-led teaching was replaced by a blendedmethod of teaching and learning in order to put students at the centre of learningactivities. In traditional methods, teaching is usually delivered through weeklylectures and a series of class seminars. I was convinced that having more seminar

Table 3 The methods of research-led and research-based teaching

Research-led Teaching Research-based Teaching

Emphasises research content; Emphasises research processes and problems;

Teacher-focused; Student-focused;

Students as audience; Students as participants;

Students learn about research findings; Students construct knowledge by independent research;

Uni-linear transfer of knowledge. Support critical and creative thinking of students.

410 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

discussions would translate into more active student participation in their process oflearning. As Anderson argues, seminars and group discussions provide an arenawhere ‘active’ learning can take place and where critical thinking and thedevelopment of communication skills can be encouraged. It has also been claimedthat ‘democratically run’ discussion groups can encourage students to think more‘independently and gain confidence in their own abilities’ (Anderson 1997, p. 184-5). In my understanding, students should not view seminars ‘as little more than anextension to the lecture’, where the lecturer carries out a monologue (Jaques 2000, p.88). Moreover, the process of ‘deep’ as opposed to ‘surface’ approaches to learningmust be encouraged in small group discussions (Biggs 2003, pp. 14-15). Hence, theliterature indicated the positive outcome of student participation in seminar discussionsin order to support a student-focused approach. My own teaching experience andstudent feedback also supported these claims that I decided to introduce the ‘blended’approach to teaching and learning (Bradshaw 2011; Chan 2011).

I consulted other colleagues within the Islamic Studies Network in the UK, withinwhich I have been actively participating in workshops and conferences on the issueof case-studies of good practice of teaching Islam and Middle Eastern politics withinthe British higher education sector. Although I was aware that each institution’scourse content and departmental goals differ from another I found their input veryuseful in identifying the kinds of teaching methodologies currently used in Islamicstudies that could be applied to my course. After careful consultations and readingdebates in the literature, I decided to introduce a 2-h session, which blends lectureand seminar together. In this ‘blended’ method of teaching, various examples ofweb-based (e-sources, Blackboard, email) and non-web-based tools (PowerPointpresentations, handouts, videos) of educational technology are included into teachingand learning processes. In the first hour of the blended method of teaching I give abrief lecture to introduce key concepts and learning outcomes of each session. At thebeginning of each lecture, students are provided handouts with the PowerPoint slideson, giving them space to write their own comments. I included the use of additionalhandouts giving definitions of the specific Islamic terms in Arabic that students arestruggling with. I also introduced the use of additional visual aids as part of ET suchas maps, charts, pictures and political cartoons in PowerPoint presentation. Inparticular, showing a regional map at the start of the lecture focuses students’attention and contextualises the material visually in a geographical context. Whilehandouts aim to explain difficult terms and phrases PowerPoint slides tend to containjust the right amount of information (not too little or too much) by making them easyto follow. I try to end each lecture with a 5 min question and answer session beforehaving a break for the next hour.

The second hour of the session is based on inquiry-based learning activities thatstudents are active participants. Each session is divided up in to a two 20 minsections separated by a 5 min video break, which is based on the research thatstudents’ attention is limited to maximum 20 min (Gibbs and Habeshaw 1989, p.42). Small group discussions were blended with the use of multi-media. Hence, inthe second hour, each session usually begins by showing a video clip from a Westernnews outlet to highlight the themes for the session and relate these to the discussionquestions. The video show is usually supported by a short quiz to ‘drill down’ thekey concepts and ideas that they heard in the video. After encouraging students to

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 411

understand the key themes of the lecture, they are divided into team and pairs tohave ‘think-pair-share’ discussions in the first 20 min of the session. While thestudents discuss the set seminar questions, I speak to each team before asking themto come back together to share their ideas with other seminar participants during thesecond 20 min of the session. At the end of the session, each team is asked to sumup what he or she had learned and the main points he or she would take away fromthe session. This mix of different approaches maintained student interest throughouta lengthy 2-h session, and the end of the session is particularly important to highlightthe outcomes of their inquiry-based learning and discussions.

In short, the new method implied the use of a blend of different teaching andlearning activities – crucially the use of small group discussions to facilitate betterand deep learning outcomes. As demonstrated in Fig. 4, the feedback I gatheredfrom students in an informal questionnaire (Question 1) further indicated that themajority of students found an interactive (41 out of 48, or 85%) and blended method(33 out of 48, or 69%) of teaching more helpful for learning than the traditionalmethods of teaching (See Appendix 1). The feedback not only supported the need toalter my approach but also indicated that traditional methods that work for othersubjects were not necessarily useful in studying Islamic and Middle Eastern politics.

As Fig. 4 highlights, the majority of students (41 out of 48, or 85% strongly agree,agree and partially agree) indicated that they enjoyed small group discussions andteamwork (Question 2), where they participated much more actively, than in teacher-focused lectures (See Appendix 1). Therefore, the evidence amd peer observations Igathered throughout the different cycles of my teaching (See Table 1, Figs. 3 and 4)indicate that this mixed use of blended teaching, educational technology and inquiry-based teaching methods can be much more effective than traditional one long 50 minlecture twice a week.

Thirdly, during my search for an alternative method of teaching for Islamicstudies, the method of assessment was changed to make the new approach research-based and support the blended method of learning. In addition to the traditionalessay and exam, seminar participation is assessed. In order to ensure that all studentsactively contributed to discussions, seminar participation constitutes a component ofstudents’ overall mark. This is further supported by case studies to achievemaximum seminar participation. Each student has to choose a case study countryon which to carry out independent research. The student is expected to develop anin-depth knowledge of the country’s foreign policy making, gathering data and

0

5

10

15

20

StronglyAgree

Agree PartiallyAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Qeustion 1

Question 2

Fig. 4 Student feedback on the alternative methods of teaching

412 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

information as the semester progressed. This is an independent piece of research,theoretically informed by the content of the module. Students are encouraged to takeresponsibility for their own learning process and to lead research based on academicand web-based sources. Students are informed that their independent research-basedknowledge has to reflect both an understanding of theories and, more importantly,the application of this theoretical knowledge to the empirical analysis of their chosencountry’s foreign policy making. Students are also motivated by the idea that if theywere able to develop a critically articulated alternative theory at the end of themodule they would be granted higher marks for this portion of the assessment. Thisapproach is supported in the literature in the observation that ‘in general thoseadopting “deep” approaches are more successful in exams’ (Jaques 2000, p. 46). Asindicated earlier in Table 2, students in my module were the most successful in theirexams and achieved the highest overall grade in the department. Furthermore, byadopting a deep approach to learning a student can progress along the path ofbecoming a ‘critical thinker who seeks balanced reasons in an argument and has boththe ability and the disposition to do so’ (Tishman and Andrade 1995, p. 3). This isexactly what I would like students to achieve not only in my courses but also inother aspects of their learning experiences in higher education.

4 Reflections on alternative teaching methods in Islamic studies

This article argued the digital revolution of the 21st century has challenged andchanged the methods of teaching and learning in higher education. It first explainedwhy knowledge construction is more effective than information sharing to promotecritical thinking and deep learning and then explored how the former process isenhanced by the effective use of ETwhile the latter is supported by IT. In accordancewith existing debates in the literature, it attempted to synthesise Bigg’s definition of‘constructing knowledge’ with Aristotelian classification of categories of knowledge.Based on this synthesis, it is argued here that the aims of my personal teachingreflected strong preferences for the construction of knowledge by students withreference to epistêmê and technê rather than their ownership of information.Knowledge in the technological age can only make sense when it is contextualisedand created by learners themselves. In order to achieve these aims this paper firstexplained the importance of constructing knowledge through the use of ET and thenhighlighted why a research-based teaching method is introduced in helping studentsto become independent researchers and critical thinkers. In particular, the outcomes ofthe three new methods of research-based teaching that I developed in the InternationalPolitics Department—the innovative methods of assessment through utilising ET, theuse of e-Portfolios for formative assessment and a blended method of teaching—indicated that traditional methods of teaching are not necessarily productive whenteaching Islamic and Middle Eastern studies in international politics. Therefore, mysearch for new teaching methods has led me to technologically-enhanced, research-based and student centred teaching. These methods are not only more effective inencouraging students to become critical thinkers in understanding the key issues of the‘strategically important’ subject areas but are also transferable to other areas of Islamicstudies and wider social sciences in the UK.

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 413

Appendix 1: A sample of informal module evaluation questionnaire,Aberystwyth University

414 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416

References

Anderson, C. (1997). Enabling and shaping understanding through tutorials. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell andN. Entwistle (Eds). The experience of learning: implications for teaching and studying in highereducation (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2008). Is information acquisition still important in the information age?Education and Information Technologies, 13, 35–53.

Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

Bradshaw, D. (2011) Blended approach extents reach. Financial Times, Special Report, 14 March 2011;available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/53a0a23e-4b71-11e0-89d8-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1Lwmb1RpY(Accessed on 6 June 2011).

Breivik, P. S. (1998). Student learning in the information age. Phoenix: Oryx.Callaos, N. (2009) The essence of engineering and meta-engineering: A work in progress, (First

Unfinished Draft); available at http://www.iiis.org/Nagib%2DCallaos/Engineering%2Dand%2DMeta%2DEngineering/ (Accessed on 31 October 2010).

Chan, W. K. (2011) ‘Blended Learning: Technology Helps Facilitate face-to-face Experience,’ FinancialTimes, 14 March 2011; available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6dea06d4-4b72-11e0-89d8-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1LwnPvg6C (Accessed on 6 June 2011).

Davies, C., & Good, J. (2009). Harnessing technology: The learner and their context – Choosing to usetechnology: how learners construct their learning lives in their own contexts, Key findings from thefirst year of research. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA): DigitalEducation Resource Archive (DERA); available at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1525/ (Accessed on 16 June2011).

Felder, R. M., Wood, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering education II.Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26–39. available at http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Quartet2.pdf (Accessed on 1 November2010).

Fenstermacher, K. D. (2005). The tyranny of tacit knowledge: What artificial intelligence tells us aboutknowledge representation,” Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences. pp. 1–10.

Gibbs, G., & Habeshaw, T. (1989). Preparing to teach: An Introduction to effective teaching in highereducation. Bristol: TES Books.

Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus; the case of the builtenvironment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), pp. 709–726.

HEFCE. (2011). Evaluation of HEFCE’s programme of support for strategically important and vulnerablesubjects: A report to HEFCE by Curtis+Cartwright Consulting. Surrey: Curtis+Cartwright.

Işık, C., & Yılmaz, S. (2011). E-learning in life long education: a computational approach to determininglistening comprehension ability. Education and Information Techonologies, 16, 71–88.

Jaques, D. (2000). Learning in groups: a handbook for improving group work. London: Routledge.Jenkins, A., Healey, M., & Zetter, R. (2007). Linking teaching and research in disciplines and

departments (The Higher Education Academy); available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/LinkingTeachingAndResearch_April07.pdf (Accessed on 16 June 2011).

Land, S., & Greene, B. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: a qualitative study ofresource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45–67.

Law, N., Chow, A., & Yuen, H. K. (2005). Methodological approaches to comparing pedagogicalinnovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 10(1/2), 5–18.

Long, J., & White G. (2010). On the global knowledge components in an information security curriculum– a multidisciplinary perspective. Education and Information Technologies. 13:4, pp. 317–331.

Owston, R. (1997). The World Wide Web: a technology to enhance teaching and learning? EducationalResearcher, 26(2), 27–33.

Parry, R. (2003). “Epistêmê and Technê,” Stanford University; available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/episteme-techne (Accessed on 16 June 2011).

Race, Phil., & Brown, S. (1998). The lecturer’s toolkit: a practical guide to learning, teaching andassessment. London: Kogan Page.

Salomon, G. (2000a). Technology and education in the age Of information (In Hebrew). Haifa and Tel-Aviv: University of Haifa and Zmora-Bitan Press.

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416 415

Salomon, G. (2000b). It’s not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts. Keynote address at the2000 Ed-Media Meeting, Montreal; available at http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/00/salomonkeynote.htm (Accessed on 16 June 2011)

Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2000). The knowledge integration environment: helping students use theinternet effectively. In M. L. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematicseducation: Advance design for technologies of learning (pp. 193–226). Mahwah: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Strang, K. D. (2010). Balanced assessment of flexible e-Learning versus face-to-face campus deliverycourses at an Australian University. In Mukerji, S., & Tripathi, P. (Eds.), Cases on technologicaladaptability and transnational learning: issues and challenges. (pp.42–68). IGI Global.

Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. (1995). Thinking dispositions: a review of current theories, practices andissues. Harvard University: Unpublished Manuscript.

Wallace, M., Karpouzis, K., Stefanau, M., Maglogiannis, I., & Kollias, S. (2004). Electronic roads inhistorical documents: a student oriented approach. Education and Information Technologies, 9(3),271–289.

416 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:399–416