Liburd, Janne J.

English

Syddansk Universitets Forskerportal

Tourism Education 2.0. The case of INNOTOURDr. Janne J. LiburdAssociate professor, Director, Centre for Tourism, Innovation and CultureUniversity of Southern DenmarkNiels Bohrsvej 9-10DK-6700 Esbjerg DenmarkPhone: +45 6550 1576Email: liburd@hist.sdu.dkTourism Education 2.0. The case of INNOTOUR  Abstract This paper reports on the learning experiences from the INNOTOUR project that aims to raise the quality of higher tourism education by use of Web 2.0 technology, new pedagogy, and values-based education. Web 2.0 refers to the principles and practice of facilitating information sharing and social interaction by users generating, altering and uploading web-based content (O’Reilly, 2005). Communication within and across different domains are enabled by tools such as blogs, wikis, social network, tagging systems, mashups and content-sharing sites that are based on open access (Brown & Adler, 2008). In contrast to Web 1.0 where users are limited to passive viewing of information, Web 2.0 allows users to interact with others to reuse and generate content through practices of bottom-up, interactive, user-centric and open access collaboration in multiple contexts. Representing a new form and norm of tourism education referred to as ‘Tourism education 2.0’, the rationale for this paper is the enhanced distributive capacity of tourism education by Web 2.0 practices of bottom-up, interactive and open collaboration in online content generation (Benkler, 2006; Tapscott & Williams, 2008). Tourism education 2.0 rests on a network of actors who form into a coalition of participants working together on a common educational task by use of Web 2.0 communication technologies. It is of pivotal importance to acknowledge that the learning environment is markedly enlarged when embracing Web 2.0 technologies. Tourism education still takes place within the classroom, the laboratory, the library, and the workplace. But teaching and learning is also enabled in online communities of peers who are collaborating to realize the goals of higher education in flexible learning structures. This paper reports on collaborative teaching and learning experiences based on the INNOTOUR platform and the implementation of the Global TEFI Courses.The Global TEFI Courses were jointly taught in 2010 and 2011 by tourism educators based in Brazil, USA, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and New Zealand for bachelor students at the six participating universities. Behind this worldwide initiative to open higher tourism education lies a growing realization of the seismic changes and implications of mega-trends facing the tourism industry and the world at large. In 2007, Dwyer et al. identified these mega-trends as social (e.g. age complexity, urbanization, feminization of workforce), political (e.g. safety and security, immigration issues), environmental and resources (e.g. climate change, land use changes) and technical (e.g. increasing importance of knowledge, continued fast pace of technological development). Currently enrolled tourism students will seek future employment in the tourism industry where they will be expected to respond actively to the complex influences of mega-trends, which are not entirely independent of each other. Others will seek employment in academe, where independent, critical thinking guide education and research activities that may also focus on responses to mega-trends in various forms. Many students will be occupying jobs that do not even exist today and even more can expect to leave university without any assurance that they will find a job in the field for which they may be qualified. Pointing to the global population increase, and related competition, less dependence on manual labor and the mass-university producing more graduates, Robinson (2009: 232) asserts that: "The plain fact is that a college degree is not worth a fraction of what it once was. A degree was a passport to a good job. Now, at best, it's a visa. It only gives you provisional residence in the job market". Concerned that few undergraduate and graduate tourism programs are preparing students to meet the challenges of the present and be instrumental in forming the future (Tylor, 2009; Sheldon et. al, 2008; Liburd and Hjalager, 2010 a&b), let alone promoting a balance between satisfying the demands of business and those of the wider society and the world (Tribe, 2002; Liburd & Edwards, 2010), these challenges set the context for the INNOTOUR project at the University of Southern Denmark, which is the Web 2.0 platform supporting the Global TEFI courses. It is important to emphasize that the five TEFI values of stewardship, ethics, knowledge, mutuality and professionalism are critically addressed in and across the respective cultures and learning contexts through which they may be accorded meaning. Indeed, value freedom is the lifeblood of scientific and educational advancement. But mindful that human advancement cannot take place without full consideration of values and a deep contemplation of what is a good life and a good world (Liburd & Tribe, 2011). Developing critical thinking and reflexivity beyond disciplinary confines and the classroom also enable active student engagement and transformation of current academic practices. By embedding learning in processes of collaboration and communicative action (Habermas, 1984, 1987) students engage in learning-to-learn and learning-to-be, rather than simply learning about a topic, such as tourism. This elaborates on Barnett’s (1990: 22) observation that “higher education implies more than the mere acquisition of knowledge. It requires a sceptical and questioning attitude towards knowledge”. Collaborative teaching and learning distinguishes itself from cooperation as collaboration does not imply a division of labour, which is often the essence of cooperation. Collaborative learning rests on the hypothesis that the sum of the work is larger than its individual parts, and that focus should be as much on the process as on the end result. The knowledge created is a joint product based on reflection, discussion and collective understanding. The transformation from closed and controlled tourism education toward openness and transparency thus occurs through dialogical forms of reconstruction and collaboration in tourism education 2.0. Representing an innovation in higher tourism education, the reconstruction is emergent within the creation of new social forms, new norms for interacting, new attitudes and new social realities (Hollinshead, 2007). More recently, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2008, 2011) and the Swedish Research Council (2009) have actively pushed for making publicly funded research results accessible and ‘giving knowledge for free’, in the words of the OECD (2008). Further substantiating the significance of this paper, there is a need to cultivate awareness of the new norms of openness in scientific knowledge development and education in order to direct the future of tourism education and research. Still, concerns over openness in the ownership and open dissemination of tourism education may bring an erosion of confidence in the forms of learning, knowledge and information produced. Coupled with innovative pedagogical perspectives this also act as criteria for the concluding assessment of tourism education 2.0.  The structure of this paper is as follows. First, the main areas of the INNOTOUR platform will be described. Next, the context for the co-creation of the Global TEFI Courses will be introduced before the conditions for collaborative teaching and learning are discussed. Adopting a Web 2.0 philosophy, these conditions include teacher training, didactic considerations, and pedagogical perspectives as the implementation of open education and values-based learning calls for new learning paradigms and methodologies that transcend traditional boundaries. The practicalities of implementing the Global TEFI Courses as well as initial student feedback will also be discussed. Evidence suggests that there is a need for alignment of curricula to ensure consistency between semester activities based on Web 2.0 philosophy and the final exam/evaluation (Biggs and Tang, 2007). The paper will conclude with reflections on the contestation of current university practice by tourism education 2.0 to identify some of the key the hindrances and positive options that are available in that context.Key references Barnett, R. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Biggs, J & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Third edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Brown, J. S. & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-32. Online. Available HTTPhttp://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420 (​http:​\/​​\/​www.educause.edu​\/​EDUCAUSE+Review​\/​EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43​\/​MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon​\/​162420​). (Accessed May 16, 2010).Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Scott, N., Cooper, C., and Roman, C. (2007). Trends Underpinning Tourism until 2020: An analysis for key drivers for change. Sustainable Tourism CRC, Australia. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action Vol 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge Boston Polity Beacon Press.Habermas, J. (1987a). Theory of Communicative Action Vol 2. Lifeworld and system a critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge Boston Polity Beacon Press. Hollinshead, K. (2007). Indigenous Australia in the bittersweet world: the power of tourism in the projection of ‘old’ and ‘fresh’ visions of Aboriginality (​http:​\/​​\/​www.sciencedirect.com.proxy1-bib.sdu.dk:2048​\/​science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8NJM-4X798N3-R&_rdoc=4&_hierId=291986000007&_refWorkId=53174&_explode=291986000007&_fmt=high&_orig=na&_docanchor=&_idxType=TC&view=c&_ct=5&_acct=C000034658&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=644074&md5=ffd8a42d14169440121e4c09551cf74d​). In: R. Butler & Hinch (Eds.) Tourism and Indigenous peoples (pp. 281-304). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Liburd, J.J. and Hjalager, A-M (2010a), Changing Approaches to Education, Innovation and Research. Tourism Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 17: 12-20. Liburd, J.L & Hjalager, A.M. (2010b). From copyright to Copyleft. Towards tourism education 2.0. In The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies (Second edition) Elsevier. (Accepted for publication). Liburd, J.J. & Edward, D. (eds.) (2010). Understanding the Sustainable Development of Tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.Liburd, J.J. & Tribe, J. (2011). Educated Tourism. Conference paper presented at Advancing theSocial Science of Tourism 2011, 28th June - 1st July 2011, University of Surrey, UK. OECD (2008) Open innovation in global networks. Paris: OECD.OECD (2010). Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Online. Available HTTP http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_35845581_1_1_1_1_1,00.html (​http:​\/​​\/​www.oecd.org​\/​department​\/​0,3355,en_2649_35845581_1_1_1_1_1,00.html​). (Accessed April 14, 2011).O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation software. Online. Available HTTP http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228 (​http:​\/​​\/​www.oreillynet.com​\/​lpt​\/​a​\/​6228​) (Accessed July 20, 2011).  Robinson, K. (2009). The Element. How finding your passion changes everything. London: Pengiun Books. Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D., Woeber, C., Cooper, C. and Antonioli, M. (2008). Tourism Education Futures; 2010-2030: Building the Capacity to Lead. Journal of Travel and Tourism Teaching 7 (3): 61-68. Swedish Research Council (2009). Remit. Online. Available HTTP http://www.vr.se/inenglish/aboutus/remit.4.44482f6612355bb5ee780001601.html (​http:​\/​​\/​www.vr.se​\/​inenglish​\/​aboutus​\/​remit.4.44482f6612355bb5ee780001601.html​)(Accessed May 29, 2010).Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D. (2008). Wikinomics. How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio, Penguin Group. Tourism Education Futures Initiative. (2009) White Paper: A Values-based framework for Tourism Education: Building the Capacity to Lead. Available: http://www.quovadis.wu-wien.ac.at/drupal/files/White%20Paper%20May22_0.pdf (​http:​\/​​\/​www.quovadis.wu-wien.ac.at​\/​drupal​\/​files​\/​White%20Paper%20May22_0.pdf" \t "_blank​) Tribe, J. (2002). The Philosophic Practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2): 338-357. Tylor, M.C. (2009). The end of the university as we know it. New York Times, April 26. Online. Available HTTP http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?_r=1 (​http:​\/​​\/​www.nytimes.com​\/​2009​\/​04​\/​27​\/​opinion​\/​27taylor.html?_r=1" \t "_blank​). (accessed May 1, 2009). 6

Tourism Education 2.0. The Case of INNOTOUR

https://findresearcher.sdu.dk/ws/files/56493924/Tourism_Education_2.0._The_case_of_INNOTOUR.doc

Tourism Education 2.0. The Case of INNOTOUR

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Syddansk Universitets Forskerportal