Round Table Discussion: Pedagogy Over Technology in MET? :

As I promised in our last issue, here’s a complete dissection of the discussion of the topic, Pedadogy over technology in MET.

The one hour cerebral discussion is not enough for the participants to further elucidate in detail the various concerns, beliefs and issues on pedagogy and technology in MET.

It is interesting to note that from the various philosophical views both from the reactors and participating delegates, each and everyone, has presented their point of views which are logical and authentic  as there are no right and wrong opinions, based on their perceptions and actual experiences.

Personally, I had the pleasure listening to the presentation of the good professor Barnett presentation as well as the impressions provided by the reactors (facilitators, educators/researchers/trainers and maritime professionals) but what interest me most are the exceptional  point of views of the maritime professional reactors that technology could in some instances be above pedagogy as far as maritime education and training (MET) is concerned which is a reality because of the uniqueness and distinctness of the maritime profession.

The flow of the discussions of the ideas, concerns and issues raised and discussed on the topic  Pedagogy Above Technology in MET has been summarized  in this article  which might be of interest to all concerned not present particularly to researchers who would like to conduct further studies on the topic pedagogy over technology in MET . As a result of diversity on the various ideas presented, a MET Research Agenda based on the discussions has also been proposed as an offshoot or by product of the PAMI-PAMTCI RTD project.

The proceedings of the discussions have been documented. Thirty (30) well- selected attendees with 13 invited reactors, contributed freely without any restraints and the same are noted as follows. Let us start with my comments:

I thanked Prof. Barnett’s for the clear presentation and I expressed my concern on research. I asked Prof. Barnet if he considered identifying particular topics or subjects that would make use of particular teaching strategies. I added that one cannot say that teacher-centered is better than student-centered and vice versa because it depends really on the case or scenario and the type of students. So, I manifested interest for research conducted by Warsash that identifies which topics/subjects are best taught using student-centered strategies and which are best taught with teacher-centered approaches with or without the aid of technology.

I also stressed that although it is known that student-centered is better than teacher-centered teaching, there are some pros and cons like when using student-centered technique, time would not be  enough to finish all topics in one semester. Prof. Barnett responded that there is no specific research that he can call upon but he said that his understanding on most research done would suggest that when one get the responsibility of the learning of students, then he/she is likely to get more long-lasting effects. That research, he mentioned, comes from a General education field.

Prof. Barnett agreed with me that in terms of all other constraints usually set by either administration or curriculum, there has to be room for both approaches – that is the ideas that is pragmatic. Also, Dr. Barnet said that teacher-focus approaches are certainly used but at the same time  teachers try to throw it back to students, so even in a normal classroom setting it is really a case strategy that teacher adopts rather than a necessary big plan.

Dr. Barnett gave an example saying that the more the teacher is answering question, the more he/she is engaged effectively in the student-based learning rather than standing in front of the class transmitting information.

Going back to my question on research, Dr. Barnett said that one probable area that demands in a sense more attention than the other is a research on the effectiveness of the different forms of assessment. He said that they are exploring on the ability of simulators, for example, to be able to assess competence particularly on technical skills which are recognized as very important. I also followed it up with a question and stated that deep and surface approaches were differentiated. I said that looking at the difference, deep approaches are better because indeed higher skills are being developed. But I added that one cannot organize principles to integrate ideas, for example, unless we first memorize fact and procedures, thus, I am interested to know the objective of differentiating the two approaches in terms of technology.

Prof. Barnett clarified that no one is suggesting that one approach should be used exclusively to the expense of the other. He said that it depends on what one is trying to do; if the teacher is trying to, perhaps with younger students, get a handle on certain basic facts then clearly information transmission that is teacher-centered approach is going to work better.

However, Prof. Barnet explained that the more experienced or the more senior one becomes, then he/she is more likely to change to the development of critical thinking skills if he/she adopted a different approach – that is the pedagogical thinking. So, he added that what one should do is to adjust strategy depending on the students, on the situation which is basically at is simplest is what one is trying to do.

C/E Alfredo Haboc of PHILCAMSAT stated that the presentation provided basic foundation for the discussion as the presenter refreshed them with the definition of pedagogy and andragogy. He also stated that Prof. Barnett reviewed them with the use student-centered and teacher-centered strategies as well as with the understanding of deep learning and surface learning. With the presentation, he affirmed that technology should be the servant not the driver of the whole thing. C/E Haboc said that he should have appreciated the presentation more if precise subjects taught in schools were given as samples in the process.

Capt. Constantino Arcellana, Jr., MM of Far East Maritime Foundation and former PRC examiner, appreciated the presentation. He said that while it may be true, in general, that teachers should be above technology, there are certain considerations like in the Philippines wherein sometimes technology can do better than the teachers. He explained by relating the situation in the Philippines.

The first one he mentioned is economic consideration. He said (particularly speaking on the training side, not on the education side) that in most of the training courses, with the number of students, the instructors available and the quality, sometimes technology (like computer) can do better than teachers because sometimes teachers are subjective and the technology (like CBT) are objective as there are systems now that test the students’ ability.

Also, he stated that speaking about the scenario in the Philippines, thousands of seafarers are undergoing trainings every day in various training centers compared to other countries with good teacher-student ratio. In the country, in a class of 24, if it is an IMO model course, there is only one teacher and he/she does not even determine the entry level of the knowledge of students because his/her duty is only to deliver the subject matter as per STCW requirement. Capt. Arcellana said that at the end of the course, “only God knows what they really learned”.

Further, he relayed that education in the Philippines is of different model. He detailed that good schools have 2-1-1 curriculum which mean two (2) years preparatory education, then one (1) year shipboard training and finally (1) year back to school to finished their schooling while others have 3-1 curriculum, that is, three (3) years education and one (1) year shipboard training. Capt. Arcellana expressed that students under the 2-1-1 curriculum learn better compared to those under the 3-1 curriculum which majority of the private schools has.

He added that in the 3-1 curriculum, the students after the 3-year education are allowed to find their own berth for shipboard training which can take even years before completion and then take the PRC examination. He noted that standards vary because of that. Further, Capt. Arcellana mentioned that STCW courses are controlled by the government so if the government says that this course will run 40 hours, it will be done as such.

Hence, whether a trainee is an experienced master mariner or entry level, they will both take the course for 5 days.  So those are the factors which Capt. Arcellana said that sometimes technology can do better than teachers. Lastly, he also commented that between teachers and technology, it should be used discriminately. Capt. Arcellana also stressed that students should be the center of education and their outcome particularly on training courses, which should really be used to enhance the skills and competency of seafarers.

Prof. Barnett appreciated the comments as these raise interestingly difficult issues in their debate. He said that nobody is saying that there is anything wrong with computer-base training or in computer-based assessment. He also stated that given in a pragmatic, issues were raised about numbers. He conveyed that the point that one would make, in the field of education and training, is awareness on what CBT can do and what it may not do. He added that, one needs to know, for example, about CBT, very much about the creativity of the people who designed the CBT program.

Further, Prof. Barnett explained that when looking at CBT and what it does best, it is probably more on the area of surface learning rather than deep learning. He also mentioned that assessment, generally on multiple-choice questions, are certainly more able to test those aspects rather than the aspect of critical thinking. He emphasized that it is not saying that innovative approach or design of CBT program particularly assessment questions cannot be divulged. He said that he is sure it can be. But then he asserted that this is where the pedagogies needs to understand exactly what it is doing and what it is not doing.

He also conveyed that if one understands that, he/she is aware of what it is testing and what is not testing. On the second point, Prof. Barnett agreed that, all of them, not just in the Philippines, are constrained by celibacies and hours of which they have to teach, lectures and other.

To him, that is one of the practicalities of the world and that is a pragmatic approach. He stressed that it does not have anything to do pedagogical theories which in a competence-based system would suggest that competence is the goal, not necessarily the time it takes together.

Mr. Rod Short of Global MET expressed his gratitude in listening to Prof. Barnett and said that he agrees with every thing that has been said.

His comment was on training people to do a job at sea. He cited that he wonders how much education of such is involved in this but he asserted that they should pay attention to the feedback from ship masters for example.

He mentioned three examples on the bridge saying that many are now saying that very basic training things such as understanding of the collision regulation, lack of situational awareness on the bridge and lack of understanding of ship stability situation indicate that in many respect the product of what are being done (in education and training) are not really meeting the needs of the industry. He emphasized that they should asked themselves why.

Mr. Short reiterated that he agreed with everything that was said, he stressed, however, that there is a danger with being seduced by the technology because of not having the resources to do it other than with the technology. He cited that in his visits to various academies particularly in Asia, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get the teachers in the classroom who are needed in the classroom.

He then asked on how to compensate for that. He suggested being pragmatic in the approach by having a mix of pedagogy and technology. Further, he asserted that the lovely pieces of technology is not really the answer for the students, rather going out to the bridge and smell the air and feel and understand the situation. He stated that they seem failing in this aspect, generally speaking, though there are exemptions.

Capt. Retlic, MM (International Federation of Ship Masters Association -FSMA) thanked Prof. Barnett for his inspiring presentation and shared his MET experience in Germany. He stated that 20 years ago when MET situation in Germany was a little bit doubtful and downhill, he only met a class of five students which he said was brilliant as he was able to do the student-centered approach (also called  participative approach) right from the beginning. This to him is very inspiring for both sides. He revealed that this has very interesting outcome from these students on human resource management which is his specialty. He mentioned an improvement of students’ understanding on how to handle crew and a deeper insight on what are they going to meet with respect to intercultural management skills and so on and so for. But then, all of the sudden, there was a tremendous increase in number of students in MET.

Capt. Retlic recalled that not five but 50 were in his class and he thought at first that he is in another class. He said that he was prepared for student-centered approach to learning but then he realized that this is no longer of any use because it will not work in this group.

Nowadays, he is handling a class of 120, so taking the limited amount of working hours and also the lecture prepared, he mentioned that this may be point for debate on the Chapter 8 (referring to previous lectures/discussions).

He then relate that it is not likely possible to comeback to the smaller groups. Capt. Retlic said that he found himself in the situation giving the old fashion style of frontal teaching, the lecture centered approach, which is absolutely useless for one side. So, he stated that one constraint with the current situation in the European market is the difficulty of getting new lecturers on board for various reasons.

He also mentioned another constraint, that is, the ability of students to follow student-centered approach has dramatically changed over the last years in Germany. He revealed that when meeting students in their first year, they are waiting for the wise man to tell them what they have to believe and it is really hard to get them thinking and get them involved in the development of new ideas.

Further, Capt. Retlic cited that constraints to the topic being discussed, when it comes to use technology, particularly CBT, they are meeting a different situation in Germany due to the fact that the number of young lecturers and colleagues is very limited and old-age pensioners is getting more and more and they neither have the ability nor willingness to change their minds to try use new means of teaching aids.

Capt. Reynold M. Sabay, MM, of New Simulator Center of the Philippines, stated that there are certain realities in education and training which are being faced and he is uncertain how far pedagogy or andragogy can address this.

He mentioned that when no one is available, the worst becomes the best. Then, he pondered which is worst the teacher or the technology. He also added that in the beginning, technology seems to be the luxury item because it is costly, especially nowadays with simulators, and slowly through the years, in his experience in the last 10 years, the teachers are now becoming the luxury (as they are losing them). He also cited that it is like saying that, what we are going to do with the grass if the horse is dead. So in the topic pedagogy over technology, Capt. Sabay expressed his belief and concern that they are facing technology over pedagogy nowadays.

Capt. Alvin Tormon, MM, also a lawyer and a Ph.D commended Prof. Barnett for his short but very vivid presentation.

On the aspect of pedagogy above technology over the years of training seafarers (more than a decade now), he said that the more important thing in this kind of process is having a willing learner, like a Grade 1 or Grade 2 pupil given with information and then getting on with the hands-on.

He mentioned his experience, being a young master, in teaching other masters more than twice his age. He stated that sometimes the attitude towards being taught by someone who is probably less experienced than one, in a pedagogical manner, becomes repulsive to an adult learner because the older a person get, the more stubborn he/she becomes. So it has been useful in some specific cases to use technology ahead of the pedagogy, he relayed based on his experience, for the purpose of showing the stubborn learner who does not want to learn that there are certain things that probably he/she does not know.

He added that when starting with pedagogy, some students would say outright no or this will not work because of their experience. So he opined that, though fully agreeing that in general pedagogies should come ahead of technology, trainers should be very careful in discriminating, evaluating and taking the level of the students that they handle.

This is however, very difficult in the Philippines because they do not classify students in the same way that maybe in Europe are being done. He said that they just deliver the same course for everybody irrespective of the number of years they are sailing. Hence, while once and a while in a class of 20, one or two students would say outright no, no to what the teacher is saying. He relayed one instance when one of his students, a master, claimed that Williamson Turn (for deck officers) will not work based on his experience.

So, without further pedagogy, Capt. Tormon said  that he brought his class to the simulator and let this master show him the maneuver but this student did not do it properly on several occasion. So, he said that he taught the class the proper technique and that is the time they understand his point. Hence, he pointed out that this is one specific example wherein he believes that in some instances sometimes technology should be used ahead of pedagogy.

He added that if they started with the lecture on the said example then some students would say right away that would not work. So, he concluded that it really vary depending on the level of the students.

Ms. Merle San Pedro stated that there are many issues identified now which was agreed upon by Prof. Barnett. Considering Capt. Short’s position, discussion about the present situation faced by the global shipping. He expressed that shipping companies are saying that they have encountered problems particularly on senior officers of any nationality (Filipino and European). He stated that shipping companies are concern that senior officers do not have the ability to be aware of the situation they are in and to make critical decisions as a result of analyzing information and coming to the correct decisions. He added that they may have the technical competencies and technical knowledge on ship works but they do not understand some of the issues that they have to make decisions of.

He conveyed that that may be the result of a period of time where training has been seen as a transmission of information, coupled with the other problem which is in the old days seafarers have plenty of time at sea to learn things they need to know. He also said that officers gain from experience – a combination of certain type of training in addition to years at sea through which they learn experientially all the things that they need to know. But looking at young master Capt. Tormon, Prof. Barnett said that the issue is that officers are promoted faster so they do not get that time now. Hence, he affirmed that it falls back to the education and training systems in order to prepare them to come out effectively.

He added that the reality is probably the industry staff, probably having to do more with senior officers that caliber and quality and what is driven in the training. Now, as to the solution, Prof. Barnett said that the problem is in numbers.

He stated that it is true, that it is difficult to result to anything rather than transmitting information to rows of people in front with large number of class. However, he argued that it is the challenge of pedagogies to find different ways to do it. He said that it occurred to him that they are sitting with 50 people doing something different, discussing something in front of an audience. He said that they witness things in the Philippines were debates takes place in class as an alternative to the deductive approach. He then suggested the creative use of teaching styles and skills in order to get that numbers problem. Prof. Barnett then expressed that that brings him to the issue on technology.

He clarified that he does not want the RTD participants to think that he believes or there is a belief that technology does not work. He stressed that he has a great belief in the value of simulators, internet, and web-based materials. However, he believed that what they are specifically dealing with is on computer based training packages.

He said that individual training through computers have the same problems and same challenges as with transmitting information with a lot of people. He emphasized that CBT designs are the ones that needs to be looked at, not the issue of using it or not.

Ms. San Pedro, the moderator, before entertaining other questions from the others, mentioned that there are critical points raised that needs to be clarified first because, as it is, it seems that it is now becoming a discussion of pedagogy as very much distinct from technology when pedagogy and technology are involved in education and training.

She also added that it seems from the discussion that it seems that pedagogy is an alien animal that needs to fit whether it is in education or in training. She said that as she is a teacher herself and how she understand Prof. Barnett’s presentation, Ms. San Pedro asserted that pedagogy is a science (and even an art) which is how teachers do things, how they reach out to the students/cadets, and how they make to use of technology as a medium only of that pedagogy. She requested Prof. Barnet for a rejoinder on this one.

Prof. Barnett agreed with Ms. San Pedro. He stated that this is the link, in the sense that it is the use of technology within a pedagogical strategy. He stressed that the truth about the technology is that one can use it in any way he/she likes and that is the science or the art of pedagogy– it is what one will do with it. He mentioned that the simulator is there which one can take 6 people and use it in 6 different ways. It is the skill on how to use the technology rather than the fact that they are two completely different things as these are really interlinked.

Director Gabby Berdado of TESDA introduced TESDA as one of the key government agencies basically regulating education and training in the country.  He cited that being now in the ICT world, teachers or instructors should be redefined as facilitators. He added that to be facilitators of learning using technology can be done by having a competency based delivery system because he believes that this is good enough to measure the learning or competence of each and every students or participants regardless of their level of learning before the training. Director Barded, then, reiterated that instructors should be redefined as facilitators.

Mr. Crisanto, of the Maritime Foundation, listening to the example given by Capt. Tormon on performing pedagogy and use of technology, stated that one thing to that should further be clarified is what pedagogy is first. He noted almost every body is actually performing it already but it seems that pedagogy is being separated from technology. Based on experience, he mentioned that pedagogy is more on facilitating things inside the four corners of the classrooms; as an example, there are differences in student, may be categorized as X, Y, Z and “baby boomers”.

He explained that categories X, Y, Z are the type of generation of students that are now going to or were born with technology. He asserted that the problem is awareness because they become engaged in the technology that they forget awareness. So he said that pedagogy use the technology and instructors encourage students to be aware by facilitating like asking question. He related the discussion of Prof. Barnett on deep and surface learning explaining that facilitator identifies if the learning is only on the surface and so creates stimuli to engage the students to have deep learning, probably by asking some questions leading to the further understanding of a particular topic.

On the number of students, again based on experience, Mr. Crisanto cited that not all students will definitely engage and it will certainly eat up all the time if they do and probably the intended outcomes will not achieved. Some students will engage for further understanding also of the other students, he added.

Mr. Crisanto then stated that the instructor will know if the student understands the topic by asking question. If a student does not want to be involved, then the teacher should just ask question to know if he/she understand. He also articulated that there are a lot of ways of giving assessments like CBTs after the course, post-diagnostic examination and others. Finally, he cited that clearly in the Philippines, students’ expressions such as “Ah’s” or “Oh’s” indicate understanding. Finally, he restated that pedagogy be clarified first.

Capt. Tim Wilson, Chairman of Global MET, said that the third element that links the two together is the learning style and social connectivity of students. He stated that, over the last five years in Germany, the learning style of students have changed so much because of the technology they have been exposed to. Hence, Capt. Wilson pointed out that they need to be taught with different technique and they need to have access to the internet. He added that in traditional college, the third element is actually the key to learning because unless teachers connect to the students, no change will be possible.

He also mentioned that traditional lecturers wake up one the day and the students are different than they have been for the last 200 years and so it is the students that have changed more than pedagogy or technology. So, he stressed that this is a challenge for schools work out this concern.

Capt. Orlando Dimailig, connected with Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) and a visiting Professor in Mokpo University Korea, reflected on the title of the presentation which is pedagogy above technology in MET which he totally agrees. He relayed that while teaching one of the highly technology-taught students in Asia who are very advanced, they asked him to teach them manually; so, he used technology to teach them manually.

He stated that the improper use of technology and too much reliance to technology are very dangerous practices. Finally, having been in the environment with students technology-taught and at the Philippines, he asserted that pedagogy must be above technology.

Ms. Presca Lee B. Lugo introduced herself as a teacher by profession but currently the Head of Maritime Training Division of the National Maritime Polytechnic (NMP). She expressed interest seeing technical people talking about teaching. On discussions about pedagogy over technology, Ms. Lugo shared that the first thing that must be established is “what is it that the student must learn?” Before thinking about teaching strategies and all those things, she pointed out that the basic question should be what is/are the objective(s) set for that particular session.

So, she asserted that there is no quarrel between pedagogy and technology. She also affirmed the other participants’ statement that technology is clearly a tool in teaching. She stated that she was just curious when one of the speakers said that technology over pedagogy, which she disagreed, because technology is just a way to make the students learn. She reiterated this going back to the basic question “what is it that they must learn?”