Chapter Abstract: EDIN ‘Emerging Issues 2’ by David Jennings & Diane Cashman
This chapter will look at how current Faculty are dealing with the needs of the Net Generation in the realm of Higher Education (HE) and online learning. It will review the impact of societal changes that have taken place in educational technology and discuss a model of generational distinctions in the methodological practices of teaching and learning.
Data from a study of Faculty interaction with ICT and online learning will be presented and analysed in the light of current socio-historical concepts and institutional implementations of educational technology. The primary interest will be the roll played by educational developers and technologists in under writing new methodologies and implementations
The ethos of the paper implies that recently appointed academics are primarily of the Generation X (born 1965 – 1980), these individuals have experienced a surge in technological developments but also a great degree of economic upheaval potentially leaving them with a particularly sceptical outlook upon life in general. Hence the ‘Cynic’ in the title of the paper. In Greek Philosophy these individuals were renowned for flouting social conventions and their confrontational style of engagement. Is there an analogy with current practices in HE?
As time progresses the student population, an ever fluctuating cohort, will be led by members of the Net Gen (born 1981 - 1994) and their successors. It is these who are referred to as the ‘Eclectics’, choosing a means that best suits them from current paradigms and creating their own philosophy to suit. This mirrors the current myriad of social technologies in use on the Internet and how learners are able to multi-task and process multiple streams of information at the same time.
The question arises how can the Cynics broker a means of engagement in a format palatable to the Eclectics? Can the previous generation of academics (the ‘baby boomers’ 1946 - 1964) have any chance at all? Can Faculty adopt and adapt to the new demands of learners, in a timely and pedagogically suitable way? What is the role of educational developers/technologists? How might we begin to develop our curriculum to cater for future learners?
August 07, 2007
July 23, 2007
Musings: Pedagogic alignment
Historically the concept of a University was very much in line with the idea of holistic development of the individual, they were places to experience the freedom of thought, to explore a myriad of disciplines, to be exposed to new ideas and to be able to be in a position to challenge the status quo in open fora with peers and teachers. Many such ideals are still apparent, but perhaps implemented in spirit rather than action. Today we talk of the need to develop ‘soft skills’, we provide extra curricula activities to facilitate this and go as far as to adapt our own modules in light of perceived ‘requirements’. We even offer a plethora of induction sessions; how to use the library, how to use a computer, how to write essays, where to find your research representative etc. The University has changed into a service led environment, offering customers the choice that suits them best, aiding them to attain their desired goals. A subtle but earth shattering change that has perhaps gone un-noticed, who was it that decided the University should become another Wal-Mart, offering everything under one roof to the disregard of smaller institutes. And now not only is bigger better, but alliances are essential for future proofing possible national and international opportunities. What are we suddenly selling and to whom?
European directives and a national plans call for the provision of more HE places, but populations are now declining, careers are ever changing, the insatiable need for education is across the board, we refer to it as life-long learning. In reality first world society is in the cusp of a major upheaval, on the one hand economies are more susceptible to e-commerce (and will continue to be so) offering new careers in areas yet defined, following on from this there is a need for constant re-training. On the other hand has society now reached a level of economic security whereby, individuals may choose to pursue further education, education that is often undertaken, not for a job specific reason, but for the pleasure, for the personal reward. If this scenario is true, than the current state of University behaviour, despite being overtly orientated to a ‘customer led’ theme is grossly out of step.
Re-training for new careers is not within the remit of HE in general, it is not providing a series of ‘how-to’s’ on the latest technologies or newly developed career paths, indeed specific courses may apply a level of this in any given instance, but never would it be considered its definitive learning outcome.
For the individual returning to education as an act of self improvement / reward they are presented with a bizarre scenario of technological asides (VLEs, web logs, e-journals etc), channelled information sessions (independent inductions series), and a programme of choice, where once they could focus on a discipline and acquire the skill sets necessary for knowledge construction, problem solving and information retrieval, now a series of choices (by ‘market design’) offers an eclectic approach to such a task. Although such a choice may seem effective in providing exposure to multiple disciplinary traits, are key skills being overlooked? Do the learners treat such a pic n’ mix as transitory, merely a progressive step in their education? Has the University managed to pull the wool over the consumers eyes and offer up a never ending scenario of for lifelong learning and future fee paying students?
Is this merely a symptom of a reactionary approach to educational technology and the demands of new student cohorts rather than a being able to have a forward-thinking approach?
The tribal approach to education suggests that the university allows for the collection of groupings of individuals with shared interests, passing knowledge to one another within that group and also ‘down the line’ to incoming generations. Does the onset of new communication technologies outstrip this societal need for a gathering, might there be a possibility of such groups being collectively large enough to demand or facilitate their own institutional needs vis a vis a university? (Fuller and So¨derlund, 2002). (see Maffesoli).
European directives and a national plans call for the provision of more HE places, but populations are now declining, careers are ever changing, the insatiable need for education is across the board, we refer to it as life-long learning. In reality first world society is in the cusp of a major upheaval, on the one hand economies are more susceptible to e-commerce (and will continue to be so) offering new careers in areas yet defined, following on from this there is a need for constant re-training. On the other hand has society now reached a level of economic security whereby, individuals may choose to pursue further education, education that is often undertaken, not for a job specific reason, but for the pleasure, for the personal reward. If this scenario is true, than the current state of University behaviour, despite being overtly orientated to a ‘customer led’ theme is grossly out of step.
Re-training for new careers is not within the remit of HE in general, it is not providing a series of ‘how-to’s’ on the latest technologies or newly developed career paths, indeed specific courses may apply a level of this in any given instance, but never would it be considered its definitive learning outcome.
For the individual returning to education as an act of self improvement / reward they are presented with a bizarre scenario of technological asides (VLEs, web logs, e-journals etc), channelled information sessions (independent inductions series), and a programme of choice, where once they could focus on a discipline and acquire the skill sets necessary for knowledge construction, problem solving and information retrieval, now a series of choices (by ‘market design’) offers an eclectic approach to such a task. Although such a choice may seem effective in providing exposure to multiple disciplinary traits, are key skills being overlooked? Do the learners treat such a pic n’ mix as transitory, merely a progressive step in their education? Has the University managed to pull the wool over the consumers eyes and offer up a never ending scenario of for lifelong learning and future fee paying students?
Is this merely a symptom of a reactionary approach to educational technology and the demands of new student cohorts rather than a being able to have a forward-thinking approach?
The tribal approach to education suggests that the university allows for the collection of groupings of individuals with shared interests, passing knowledge to one another within that group and also ‘down the line’ to incoming generations. Does the onset of new communication technologies outstrip this societal need for a gathering, might there be a possibility of such groups being collectively large enough to demand or facilitate their own institutional needs vis a vis a university? (Fuller and So¨derlund, 2002). (see Maffesoli).
Musings: E-learning as an economic entity
Often over sighted as a clear rationale to employ technology is the perceived benefits that accrue once an effective e-learning implementation has taken place, this implies a consequential ‘reduction’ of overheads that in turn should allow for greater investment in infrastructure that in turn will engender accessibility to a wider cohort and thus create a return on investments as the economies of scale model takes hold. This wonderful myth is not only rife but far too frequently used as a justification for expenditure on administrative systems that often over shadow true academic needs. Indeed nothing can be quite further from the truth, the very implementation of any technological solution, by its very nature, requires a commitment in time and development that unless clearly managed falls to the wayside within a 12 month cycle. Industry commitments mean that software and hardware solutions are constantly upgraded within this period, indeed a recent study (XX) showed that the technological life-cycle of a mere PC is expected to be no more than 36-48 months. Any technological strategic plan, by its very nature, needs to be adaptive, evolving with the latest developments and needs of its end users. Add to this melting pot the unenviable diseconomies of scale (as espoused by Gaible with regard to repository initiatives (Gaible, 2004) – such as the diminishing discoverability and retrieval of data and materials, the need for increased maintenance across multiple platforms and one quickly realises that any investment is a long term commitment. Suffice to say it is more sensible and appropriate to treat such an investment in e-learning and technology as part of the fundamental running costs, and not as a nominal project over a finite life-span.
Notes: Phenomenography
Marton and Ramsden 1988 provide a list of phenomenographic implications for the design of learning:
Present the learner worth new ways of seeing
Focus on a few critical issues and show how they relate
Integrate substantive and syntactic structures
Make the learners’ conceptions explicit to them
Highlight the inconsistencies within and the consequences of learners’ conceptions
Create situations where learners’ centre attention on relevant aspects
(after Laurillard 2003:69)
“In any act of learning, students simultaneously engage in three successive phases – acquiring, knowing and applying... From the constitutionalist perspective, we consider students’ prior experiences, perceptions, approaches ad outcomes to be simultaneously present in their awareness.”
Prosser and Trigwell, 1999: 17
(Reigeluth, 2006, Reigeluth, 1995)
Present the learner worth new ways of seeing
Focus on a few critical issues and show how they relate
Integrate substantive and syntactic structures
Make the learners’ conceptions explicit to them
Highlight the inconsistencies within and the consequences of learners’ conceptions
Create situations where learners’ centre attention on relevant aspects
(after Laurillard 2003:69)
“In any act of learning, students simultaneously engage in three successive phases – acquiring, knowing and applying... From the constitutionalist perspective, we consider students’ prior experiences, perceptions, approaches ad outcomes to be simultaneously present in their awareness.”
Prosser and Trigwell, 1999: 17
(Reigeluth, 2006, Reigeluth, 1995)
Notes: Communities of Practice
In discussing the concept of shared cognition one inevitably has to consider the social element, how individuals interact within an environment and with one another. Etienne Wenger (1998) developed the concept of Communities of Practice, in which there are three key elements: the domain, the community and the practice. The key to each of these domains (and indeed the community itself) is the interactions between individuals, their joint purpose and their actual endeavours. Wenger sees this as a means by which to promote collaboration online, more often than not it is mistakenly perceived that a community of practice is a mere website, network or shared concern. All of these may indeed form the constituent parts of a community of practice but they require activities to bring them to fruition e.g. Problem solving, Requests for info, Seeking experience, Reusing assets, Coordination and synergy, Discussing developments, Documentation projects, Visits, Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps.
Wenger refers to a “community of practice seen as a living curriculum…” it is this entity that may form the foundation for collaboration and in turn the structure within which shared cognition occurs on an ongoing basis, promoting both life long learning and continuing professional development. A study by Olivera and Straus (2004) testing the transfer of knowledge in a lab-based cooperative learning scenario indicates that learning occurred primarily around cognitive tasks rather than actual social factors, thus highlighting the need for structure based scenarios or a framework to facilitate collaborative efforts such as may be found Wenger’ Communities.
Thomas (2002) puts forward the proposal that the use of discussion boards may aid in the level of thinking undertaken by students. In particular the attainment of critical thinking and deep cognitive processing. In her paper she explores the idea of measuring the environmental impact of the use of facilitators and collaborative tasks. Cooke and Sheeran (2004) also cite the use of moderators to determine behavioural changes in cognitive relations. Problem-based learning is often chaired and run by the learners themselves, in this online version a facilitator was in place to ensure the process was followed through to fruition and to offer any additional and necessary support factors (such as technical assistance, course guidance and mentoring).
An individual’s construction of knowledge, can be suggested as being a ‘collaboration with oneself’, drawing on experience, practice and implementation to achieve a desired objective e.g. a particular learning goal. This is brought into a group dynamic where such implicit experiences are often made explicit via cognitive conflict (i.e. challenging and exploring concepts co-operatively). Each group member may demonstrate a ‘personal’ interaction with the curriculum elements that is interpreted internally yet shared externally. This interaction offers an increased range of experience demonstrated, explored and shared via the entire group. Van Boxtel et al suggest that a key element in the positive perception of collaboration “...is the notion that social interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge’ (313, 2000). It provides a forum within which individual learners have the opportunity to engage with the process and express their understanding.
Though this may appear elementary, i.e. differing group members applying personal learning styles or social perspectives for instance. What is not as apparent is the effect upon the group dynamic. According to Vygotsky (1978) the internalization of a shared event by an individual may only be revealed at a later date when that individual is confronted by a similar problem/context within which to react. Thus the results of shared cognition may be seen to be internalized/referenced for future interactions. Furthermore the exposure to differing learning styles may actually affect the way in which individuals decide to learn themselves in future - collaboration leading to co-construction of knowledge.
Wenger refers to a “community of practice seen as a living curriculum…” it is this entity that may form the foundation for collaboration and in turn the structure within which shared cognition occurs on an ongoing basis, promoting both life long learning and continuing professional development. A study by Olivera and Straus (2004) testing the transfer of knowledge in a lab-based cooperative learning scenario indicates that learning occurred primarily around cognitive tasks rather than actual social factors, thus highlighting the need for structure based scenarios or a framework to facilitate collaborative efforts such as may be found Wenger’ Communities.
Thomas (2002) puts forward the proposal that the use of discussion boards may aid in the level of thinking undertaken by students. In particular the attainment of critical thinking and deep cognitive processing. In her paper she explores the idea of measuring the environmental impact of the use of facilitators and collaborative tasks. Cooke and Sheeran (2004) also cite the use of moderators to determine behavioural changes in cognitive relations. Problem-based learning is often chaired and run by the learners themselves, in this online version a facilitator was in place to ensure the process was followed through to fruition and to offer any additional and necessary support factors (such as technical assistance, course guidance and mentoring).
An individual’s construction of knowledge, can be suggested as being a ‘collaboration with oneself’, drawing on experience, practice and implementation to achieve a desired objective e.g. a particular learning goal. This is brought into a group dynamic where such implicit experiences are often made explicit via cognitive conflict (i.e. challenging and exploring concepts co-operatively). Each group member may demonstrate a ‘personal’ interaction with the curriculum elements that is interpreted internally yet shared externally. This interaction offers an increased range of experience demonstrated, explored and shared via the entire group. Van Boxtel et al suggest that a key element in the positive perception of collaboration “...is the notion that social interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge’ (313, 2000). It provides a forum within which individual learners have the opportunity to engage with the process and express their understanding.
Though this may appear elementary, i.e. differing group members applying personal learning styles or social perspectives for instance. What is not as apparent is the effect upon the group dynamic. According to Vygotsky (1978) the internalization of a shared event by an individual may only be revealed at a later date when that individual is confronted by a similar problem/context within which to react. Thus the results of shared cognition may be seen to be internalized/referenced for future interactions. Furthermore the exposure to differing learning styles may actually affect the way in which individuals decide to learn themselves in future - collaboration leading to co-construction of knowledge.
Notes: Shared Cognition
Shared Cognition is seen as being situation dependant; it specifically enables social interactions (and knowledge sharing) within a given context that is immediately applicable to the task at hand. By linking context and knowledge the learner is made aware of the conditions under which the knowledge should be applied. In the wider realm the learner may thus see how such knowledge can best be applied in outside situations – thus fostering critical and creative thinking within an online environment, as with traditional face to face teaching, the relevancy of case based scenarios, or contextualised data is essential to focusing the learners attentions on the immediate needs of a problem or example and on the identified module learning outcomes in assuring strategic approaches to online experiences (Evans et al 2003).
The idea of co-construction of shared knowledge supports the premise that shared cognition is not just reliant on the factual knowledge and the common social grounding around that knowledge but on the processes and practices in which one may attain knowledge (Resnick, Levine, Teasley 1991). This implies that collaboration is most effective when there are common objectives i.e. that individual participants are working towards the same goal or set of goals, e.g. engaged in mutual problem solving. However work by Boxtel et al (2000) noted no discernable differences whilst testing collaborative and individual learning outcomes, this is an area of study that requires further quantitative analysis in particular.
The idea of co-construction of shared knowledge supports the premise that shared cognition is not just reliant on the factual knowledge and the common social grounding around that knowledge but on the processes and practices in which one may attain knowledge (Resnick, Levine, Teasley 1991). This implies that collaboration is most effective when there are common objectives i.e. that individual participants are working towards the same goal or set of goals, e.g. engaged in mutual problem solving. However work by Boxtel et al (2000) noted no discernable differences whilst testing collaborative and individual learning outcomes, this is an area of study that requires further quantitative analysis in particular.
Notes: Socio-Cultural Constructivism
The concept of Socio-Cultural ideals springs out of Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of proximal development, whereby individual development is a casual result of social interaction. In effect the individual internalizes any processes whilst party to social interactions and brings them to light at a later date independently. Notably he goes further to state that instruction is most efficient when students engage in activities within a supportive environment and when in receipt of appropriate guidance. This is never more apparent than in an online environment where it is essential to provide an identified framework (scaffold), in the form of peer support / mentoring and clear instructional design and learning outcomes to enable a learner to engage in a learning process whereby they may attain their own personal learning objective/s.
Notes: Socio-Constructivism
Socio-Constructivism advocates the mastery of new approaches to learning by interaction with others (Doise 1984). An individual’s interaction within a given social environment enables the production (development) of a new personal state. This new state makes it possible to return to or move into another social environment and allows for more sophisticated interactions to take place (Dillenbourg et al 1994). In essence collaborating may unlock and produce a series of criteria (culminating in a new state) within the individual. It focuses on the personal development of the individual as a result of social interactions. Crucial to any successful online experience is the establishment of a community and sense of personal ownership this is often achieved through peer inductions / icebreakers and social forums. Such social orientated tasks are used as the foundation for future collaborative endeavours, often a sense of community, trust and mutual cooperation is achieved outside of the day to day curriculum work and only becomes apparent when a group is presented with a collaborative task relating to the core discipline (Billet 1996).
Notes: Constructivism
Constructivism is based on the premise that we all construct our own perspective of the world, through individual experiences and schema. Constructivism focuses on preparing the learner to problem solve in ambiguous situations.
(Schuman, 1996) after Mergel
Two common threads of constructivism:
Learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge
Instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge
Constructivism rarely leads to one unified approach, a myriad of views and interpretations take manifold approaches to practice. Von Glasserfeld, (1997) describes it as "a vast and woolly area in contemporary psychology, epistemology, and education" (p. 204).
Phillips (1997) says, “One thing is clear: ‘Constructivism’ is the label or name given to a broad position that has now attained the status of political correctness; it is a position widely espoused in the contemporary educational research literature, and as early as the beginning of this decade five hundred articles with constructivist ideas as a focus were found” (p. 152).
At least three variants of constructivism can be inferred from the current literature. Constructivism is viewed:
- as a perspective on individual development (often referred to as psychological constructivists [Phillips, 1995, 1997]; developmental constructivism and cognitive constructivism; Piaget, 1972),
- as a perspective on social transformation (often referred to as social constructivism;
Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986), and
- as a perspective on emancipation (referred to variously as sociological, socio-cultural, socio-historical, or emancipatory constructivism; Counts, 1932; O'Loughlin, 1992).
(2006) pg 8
"Emancipatory constructivism is based on Vygotsky's complete multilevel methodology: therefore, all four levels of development -- micro genesis, ontogenesis, phylogenesis, and cultural and historical development -- are analyzed together and in relation to each other" (Vadeboncoeur, 1977, p. 29). The approach values behaviours, qualities, and characteristics that reflect the culture and, at the same time, evaluates the impact of power and privilege on cognitive forms. This approach ventures further away than either of the others from biological determinism toward cultural determinism. Emancipatory constructivism values the role of reflection, critical thinking, and social discourse in exposing relationships of exploitation and oppression, both of the individual and of ways of thinking. Learners are encouraged to explore and understand their own situation and their own participation in maintaining or overturning power relationships. Emancipatory constructivism values inclusiveness of many voices in knowledge construction and devalues the transmission model of pedagogy (Vadeboncoeur, 1977). In this approach, formal knowledge is dissected and inspected. The approach views formal knowledge not as an educational end, but as an educational tool that is useful in guiding social discourse toward shared understanding (Richardson, 1997). Scepticism is a fundamental tenet, and learners are encouraged to question and explore. Of the three variants of constructivism described here, this one is most consistent with the existential, post-modern view, suggesting that there is no single objective Truth that can be discovered through reason. (See also Bereiter, 1994b; Cobb, 1994; Cobb & Yorkel, 1996; Confrey, 1995.)
(2006) pg 10
Duffy and Cunningham (1996: 171) view the dual premises of cognitive constructivism and socio-cultural constructivism as two contradictory views. Preferring then to focus on elements that allows for a cognitive approach to instructional design as their framework for problem-based learning displays:
Processes are applied to a problem (the problem being the stimulus for authentic activity)
Task analysis
Problem generation from syllabus content
The learning sequence of collaborative and self-directed learning
The definition of the facilitator’s role as challenger
The assessment grounded in the context of the problem
(after Laurillard 2003: 67)
(Schuman, 1996) after Mergel
Two common threads of constructivism:
Learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge
Instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge
Constructivism rarely leads to one unified approach, a myriad of views and interpretations take manifold approaches to practice. Von Glasserfeld, (1997) describes it as "a vast and woolly area in contemporary psychology, epistemology, and education" (p. 204).
Phillips (1997) says, “One thing is clear: ‘Constructivism’ is the label or name given to a broad position that has now attained the status of political correctness; it is a position widely espoused in the contemporary educational research literature, and as early as the beginning of this decade five hundred articles with constructivist ideas as a focus were found” (p. 152).
At least three variants of constructivism can be inferred from the current literature. Constructivism is viewed:
- as a perspective on individual development (often referred to as psychological constructivists [Phillips, 1995, 1997]; developmental constructivism and cognitive constructivism; Piaget, 1972),
- as a perspective on social transformation (often referred to as social constructivism;
Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986), and
- as a perspective on emancipation (referred to variously as sociological, socio-cultural, socio-historical, or emancipatory constructivism; Counts, 1932; O'Loughlin, 1992).
(2006) pg 8
"Emancipatory constructivism is based on Vygotsky's complete multilevel methodology: therefore, all four levels of development -- micro genesis, ontogenesis, phylogenesis, and cultural and historical development -- are analyzed together and in relation to each other" (Vadeboncoeur, 1977, p. 29). The approach values behaviours, qualities, and characteristics that reflect the culture and, at the same time, evaluates the impact of power and privilege on cognitive forms. This approach ventures further away than either of the others from biological determinism toward cultural determinism. Emancipatory constructivism values the role of reflection, critical thinking, and social discourse in exposing relationships of exploitation and oppression, both of the individual and of ways of thinking. Learners are encouraged to explore and understand their own situation and their own participation in maintaining or overturning power relationships. Emancipatory constructivism values inclusiveness of many voices in knowledge construction and devalues the transmission model of pedagogy (Vadeboncoeur, 1977). In this approach, formal knowledge is dissected and inspected. The approach views formal knowledge not as an educational end, but as an educational tool that is useful in guiding social discourse toward shared understanding (Richardson, 1997). Scepticism is a fundamental tenet, and learners are encouraged to question and explore. Of the three variants of constructivism described here, this one is most consistent with the existential, post-modern view, suggesting that there is no single objective Truth that can be discovered through reason. (See also Bereiter, 1994b; Cobb, 1994; Cobb & Yorkel, 1996; Confrey, 1995.)
(2006) pg 10
Duffy and Cunningham (1996: 171) view the dual premises of cognitive constructivism and socio-cultural constructivism as two contradictory views. Preferring then to focus on elements that allows for a cognitive approach to instructional design as their framework for problem-based learning displays:
Processes are applied to a problem (the problem being the stimulus for authentic activity)
Task analysis
Problem generation from syllabus content
The learning sequence of collaborative and self-directed learning
The definition of the facilitator’s role as challenger
The assessment grounded in the context of the problem
(after Laurillard 2003: 67)
Notes: Instructional Design
Instructional design is seen as the analysis of learning needs and accompanying systematic development of instruction. Closely evolving out of a stimulus and response situation, akin to that found in behaviourist experiments, learning or instructional tasks were broken down into merit worthy instances – allowing for a perform and reward event.
Robert Gagne (1962) a key proponent of instructional design, provides a theoretical framework with which to consider how individuals learn. He identifies five levels of learning: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes. With these in mind instructional designers may act upon each and provide suitable stimuli that enables the learner to interact and demonstrate a fundamental attaining of each level. Gagne’s (1985) 9 steps of instructional design, firmly based on a behaviourist stance, offers the learner a means of self actualisation by engaging in a hierarchical process of knowledge building. It is interesting to note the amount of debate that has occurred (Resnick & Resnick 1991) as to the validity of this sequential approach to knowledge acquisition, an approach that offers (for an instructional designer) the ideal opportunity to customise and personalise a learning environment on behalf of the end user.
Papert’s experiments with rudimentary programming allowing children to dictate the movement of a simulated ‘turtle’ (Harvey) achieving reward based on performance, this supported Piaget’s hypothesis that young children were adept at ‘processing concrete and operational data’ and only in time would they be capable of abstract and reflective processes. This move to such an empirical and scientific stance is also noted in the way Gagné own analysis shifted from a purely behavioural psychology led methodology to utilising more effectively the information-processing theory with the onset of computing in the early 70’s (Laurillard 2003: 64).
Description of ‘Human capabilities that are learned’ e.g. intellectual skills, cognitive strategies verbal information etc. these equate to the possible desired outcomes.
Followed by description of ‘Learning events’ for each of the former.
Combined these allow for the creation of the internal (mental) and external (situational) conditions for learning to be put in place.
Laurillard notes the complete list of instructional events to be carried out by a teacher are:
Activating motivation
Informing learner of the objective
Directing attention
Stimulating recall
Providing learner guidance
Enhancing retention
Promoting transfer of learning
Eliciting performance
Providing feedback
"Nine Events of Instruction".
Gain attention
Inform learner of objectives
Stimulate recall of prior learning
Present stimulus material
Provide learner guidance
Elicit performance
Provide feedback
Assess performance
Enhance retention transfer
Gagné and Merrill develop this concept to account for multiple objectives and the ensuing relationships between these by suggesting an approach in which one would add ‘integrative goals’. These are employed across the cognitive space by ‘enterprise schemas’, it is their responsibility to provide a foci for the integrative goals and in turn offer the potential for a development of a more finely tuned holistic deployment of actual student interactions.
Robert Gagne (1962) a key proponent of instructional design, provides a theoretical framework with which to consider how individuals learn. He identifies five levels of learning: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes. With these in mind instructional designers may act upon each and provide suitable stimuli that enables the learner to interact and demonstrate a fundamental attaining of each level. Gagne’s (1985) 9 steps of instructional design, firmly based on a behaviourist stance, offers the learner a means of self actualisation by engaging in a hierarchical process of knowledge building. It is interesting to note the amount of debate that has occurred (Resnick & Resnick 1991) as to the validity of this sequential approach to knowledge acquisition, an approach that offers (for an instructional designer) the ideal opportunity to customise and personalise a learning environment on behalf of the end user.
Papert’s experiments with rudimentary programming allowing children to dictate the movement of a simulated ‘turtle’ (Harvey) achieving reward based on performance, this supported Piaget’s hypothesis that young children were adept at ‘processing concrete and operational data’ and only in time would they be capable of abstract and reflective processes. This move to such an empirical and scientific stance is also noted in the way Gagné own analysis shifted from a purely behavioural psychology led methodology to utilising more effectively the information-processing theory with the onset of computing in the early 70’s (Laurillard 2003: 64).
Description of ‘Human capabilities that are learned’ e.g. intellectual skills, cognitive strategies verbal information etc. these equate to the possible desired outcomes.
Followed by description of ‘Learning events’ for each of the former.
Combined these allow for the creation of the internal (mental) and external (situational) conditions for learning to be put in place.
Laurillard notes the complete list of instructional events to be carried out by a teacher are:
Activating motivation
Informing learner of the objective
Directing attention
Stimulating recall
Providing learner guidance
Enhancing retention
Promoting transfer of learning
Eliciting performance
Providing feedback
"Nine Events of Instruction".
Gain attention
Inform learner of objectives
Stimulate recall of prior learning
Present stimulus material
Provide learner guidance
Elicit performance
Provide feedback
Assess performance
Enhance retention transfer
Gagné and Merrill develop this concept to account for multiple objectives and the ensuing relationships between these by suggesting an approach in which one would add ‘integrative goals’. These are employed across the cognitive space by ‘enterprise schemas’, it is their responsibility to provide a foci for the integrative goals and in turn offer the potential for a development of a more finely tuned holistic deployment of actual student interactions.
Notes: Cognitivism
Developed as an anathema to the behaviourist models, in truth it is a development of kinds to the former, but expressing a key change in the belief of the existence of internal mental states. Chomsky argued in his theory on universal grammar (Chomsky, 1969) that language could not be acquired purely through conditioning as espoused by the behaviourists and argued for the presence of internal mental states / representations that are inherent to the individual as a ‘genetic linguistic endowment.’ Methodologically cognitivism applies a scientific approach that favours explanation by use of experimentation and measurement, changes in behaviour may be observed, and used as indicators as to what is happening inside a learner's mind.
Some of the key concepts are worth mentioning as they may impact on future discussion with regard to the implementation of educational technology. The concept of a pre-ordained or genetically embedded ‘Schema’ is fundamental to the theory. The affirmation of existing knowledge (representations or internal mental states) allows an individual to use this as a point of reference from which to compare, contrast, adapt, develop, combine and extend the inherent data set.
The model of ‘Three Stage info processing’ adheres to the scientific methodology to account for access, acquiring computation of new data. The first phase the Sensory Register merely accounts for transitory data that is acted upon only if necessary. Phase two Short Term Memory, enables an individual to hold data referred by the sensory register for longer periods of time, and may in fact be held over if appropriately ‘chunked’ or tagged as meaningful to that individual. The final phase Long Term Memory takes over from STM when necessary and in effect appears to be of limitless capacity. Information here may be then cross referenced and linked to previous data or schema to embed into LTM an enable better recall and retention.
Social cognitivism theory implies that individuals learn by observing others and that their behaviour is self directed, Bandura’s work on social learning theory is the most cited work in this realm and is often connected with criminological studies after his seminal paper involving the now infamous Bobo Doll (Bandura, 1692). Bandura believed that aggression was learned through a process called behaviour modelling, and went further claiming that it may be reinforced by the media, family and the environment.
Some of the key concepts are worth mentioning as they may impact on future discussion with regard to the implementation of educational technology. The concept of a pre-ordained or genetically embedded ‘Schema’ is fundamental to the theory. The affirmation of existing knowledge (representations or internal mental states) allows an individual to use this as a point of reference from which to compare, contrast, adapt, develop, combine and extend the inherent data set.
The model of ‘Three Stage info processing’ adheres to the scientific methodology to account for access, acquiring computation of new data. The first phase the Sensory Register merely accounts for transitory data that is acted upon only if necessary. Phase two Short Term Memory, enables an individual to hold data referred by the sensory register for longer periods of time, and may in fact be held over if appropriately ‘chunked’ or tagged as meaningful to that individual. The final phase Long Term Memory takes over from STM when necessary and in effect appears to be of limitless capacity. Information here may be then cross referenced and linked to previous data or schema to embed into LTM an enable better recall and retention.
Social cognitivism theory implies that individuals learn by observing others and that their behaviour is self directed, Bandura’s work on social learning theory is the most cited work in this realm and is often connected with criminological studies after his seminal paper involving the now infamous Bobo Doll (Bandura, 1692). Bandura believed that aggression was learned through a process called behaviour modelling, and went further claiming that it may be reinforced by the media, family and the environment.
Notes: Behaviourism
Behaviourism is best described as an approach whereby all behaviour can be both studied and explained in a scientific manner without reference to the internal mental states that may exist within an individual being.
“Behaviourism, the doctrine, is committed in its fullest and most complete sense to the truth of the following three sets of claims.
1. Psychology is the science of behaviour. Psychology is not the science of mind.
2. Behaviour can be described and explained without making reference to mental events or to internal psychological processes. The sources of behaviour are external (in the environment), not internal (in the mind).
3. In the course of theory development in psychology, if, somehow, mental terms or concepts are deployed in describing or explaining behaviour, then either (a) these terms or concepts should be eliminated and replaced by behavioural terms or (b) they can and should be translated or paraphrased into behavioural concepts.
The three sets of claims are logically distinct. Moreover, taken independently, each helps to form a type of behaviourism. “Methodological” behaviourism is committed to the truth of (1). “Psychological” behaviourism is committed to the truth of (2). “Analytical” behaviourism (also known as “philosophical” or “logical” behaviourism) is committed to the truth of the sub-statement in (3) that mental terms or concepts can and should be translated into behavioural concepts.
Based on observable changes in behaviour. Behaviourism focuses on a new behavioural pattern being repeated until it becomes automatic.”
(Graham, Fall 2005 Edition)
Stimulus – response pattern
Pavlov, Thorndike (connectionism – learning the formation of connection between stimulus and response), Watson (rat boy!), Skinner (operant conditioning – stimulus in environment rather than reflexive. Concept of reinforcement schedules)
“Behaviourism, the doctrine, is committed in its fullest and most complete sense to the truth of the following three sets of claims.
1. Psychology is the science of behaviour. Psychology is not the science of mind.
2. Behaviour can be described and explained without making reference to mental events or to internal psychological processes. The sources of behaviour are external (in the environment), not internal (in the mind).
3. In the course of theory development in psychology, if, somehow, mental terms or concepts are deployed in describing or explaining behaviour, then either (a) these terms or concepts should be eliminated and replaced by behavioural terms or (b) they can and should be translated or paraphrased into behavioural concepts.
The three sets of claims are logically distinct. Moreover, taken independently, each helps to form a type of behaviourism. “Methodological” behaviourism is committed to the truth of (1). “Psychological” behaviourism is committed to the truth of (2). “Analytical” behaviourism (also known as “philosophical” or “logical” behaviourism) is committed to the truth of the sub-statement in (3) that mental terms or concepts can and should be translated into behavioural concepts.
Based on observable changes in behaviour. Behaviourism focuses on a new behavioural pattern being repeated until it becomes automatic.”
(Graham, Fall 2005 Edition)
Stimulus – response pattern
Pavlov, Thorndike (connectionism – learning the formation of connection between stimulus and response), Watson (rat boy!), Skinner (operant conditioning – stimulus in environment rather than reflexive. Concept of reinforcement schedules)
Musings: Educational Theories and there place: Impact and design
In current academic practice we are able to adapt and utilise a vast array of theory and practical expertise to enable us to engage with the learner. An almost knowingly eclectic theoretical methodology is taken to achieve a practical solution with regard to teaching and learning. Choosing elements of Behaviourism, Instructional Design, Constructivism (and its variants ), Cognitivism, to purpose a module or programme. This does even begin to touch upon actual instances of practical methodologies in use; problem-based or inquiry led learning, co-operative learning, discussion based scenarios, case study work, simple ‘active’ engagement etc. It is a relative rarity to find a particular programme embracing and proclaiming a certain theoretical ethos as its mandate, however one would acknowledge that constructivism is the current vogue, and is perceptible in many a programme design, whether this was an explicit rationale may be another matter altogether. Though many academics espouse a certain way of practice, not all would be fully cogniscent of the intricacies of any given theoretical slant. With the advent of educational technologies many individuals have surreptiously signed up to a variety of theoretical leanings and practices unwittingly. The use of the virtual learning environment Moodle being one case in particular, this application is firmly set in a socio-constructivist frameset that allows for individuals to work within such parameters. Facilitators provide content and resources in a structure that engenders the social development and interaction of individuals, in so doing initial navigability of the system (finding the resources within) may take some time to familiarise one self with. Other VLE vendors have applied key instructional design principals to aid in the design and implementation of their packages, often assuming that a particular ‘route’ of learning will be taken on behalf of the end-user, these sometimes end up as effective ‘training tools’ but lacking some what in providing a sense of knowledge exploration and collaborative endeavour.
Musings: E-learning realities
The fundamental nature of education has scarcely changed over the last number of decades to any great degree, what has occurred however is a realisation of the shear amount of technical possibilities apparent to our everyday teaching and learning needs. This reality has been brought to the fore by talk of the ‘Net Generation’ entering our schools and universities. Where once we thought of students as ‘Play-Station’ aficionados looking for more and more ‘quick fixes’ in their learning processes – we even attempted to account for such a vague predilection by talking of ‘chunking’ information into bite-size elements in an attempt to cater for their ‘limited attention’ spans. The term the Net Generation brings a rather more mature concept, it includes an outlook akin to many of the socio influenced theories that pervade our teaching in line with an innate sense and ability to integrate current technologies into every day existence.
It is this seamlessness, of technology and purpose, that has evaded education, in the majority, when implementing e-learning. In what may appear a circular argument this chapter will aim to introduce the current practices with regard to technology in learning (we will talk in more detail about the terminology of ‘technology in learning’ below), it will point to an initial well meaning, but misguided attempt to integrate technical solutions into education, that failed (and is failing) to make the most of the available solutions – simply because it was the technology that implicitly led the way in which implementations were sourced and created.
The theoretical frameworks that are used in current practice derive from a myriad of psychological and sociological ideologies that are explicit in ‘traditional’ teaching and have been re-purposed (like an ideal re-usable e-resource) for the educational community to ‘pad’ the rationale of use in the practice of e-learning. We will examine the hereditary of these theories and attempt to map a taxonomy of development that accounts for present day practices.
The core argument of this chapter revolves around the issue that it is now time to make the technology explicit in practice and empower the teacher and learner in a way that reflects the needs of our ‘information and knowledge society’ in the way we utilise both technology and information seamlessly – as an integrated whole that serves the purpose of life-long learning.
In the current educational vogue we purport to offer accountability, from the educator, the learner, the institute and its wider geo-political contexts – such as Europe’s Bologna agreement.
Before we begin let us take a perambulation into the term of e-learning. A legal case taken by one of the larger virtual learning environment (VLE) vendors is proving quite contentious... Blackboard Vs Desire2Learn.
E-learning is an often used and perhaps misplaced term. Invariably it stands for one of two things: electronic learning or (the more politically correct) enhanced learning. From this we might assume that as learning implies the ‘act of or experience of one that learns’ then it must be so via electronic means for the term e-learning.
What systems are in place for the novice academic, the old hand and the individual aiming to up skill or simply integrate some minor technological features into their traditional teaching.
Much had been made of the need for inductions to technology on campus, increasing support and training for new tools and the ability of institutions to offer a strategically aligned top down approach to the integration of such technologies across the campus. Rather large sums of money have been spent on purchasing proprietary packages or even writing and creating software solutions in house to enable some formal deployment of e-learning or technology enhanced learning.
It is this seamlessness, of technology and purpose, that has evaded education, in the majority, when implementing e-learning. In what may appear a circular argument this chapter will aim to introduce the current practices with regard to technology in learning (we will talk in more detail about the terminology of ‘technology in learning’ below), it will point to an initial well meaning, but misguided attempt to integrate technical solutions into education, that failed (and is failing) to make the most of the available solutions – simply because it was the technology that implicitly led the way in which implementations were sourced and created.
The theoretical frameworks that are used in current practice derive from a myriad of psychological and sociological ideologies that are explicit in ‘traditional’ teaching and have been re-purposed (like an ideal re-usable e-resource) for the educational community to ‘pad’ the rationale of use in the practice of e-learning. We will examine the hereditary of these theories and attempt to map a taxonomy of development that accounts for present day practices.
The core argument of this chapter revolves around the issue that it is now time to make the technology explicit in practice and empower the teacher and learner in a way that reflects the needs of our ‘information and knowledge society’ in the way we utilise both technology and information seamlessly – as an integrated whole that serves the purpose of life-long learning.
In the current educational vogue we purport to offer accountability, from the educator, the learner, the institute and its wider geo-political contexts – such as Europe’s Bologna agreement.
Before we begin let us take a perambulation into the term of e-learning. A legal case taken by one of the larger virtual learning environment (VLE) vendors is proving quite contentious... Blackboard Vs Desire2Learn.
E-learning is an often used and perhaps misplaced term. Invariably it stands for one of two things: electronic learning or (the more politically correct) enhanced learning. From this we might assume that as learning implies the ‘act of or experience of one that learns’ then it must be so via electronic means for the term e-learning.
What systems are in place for the novice academic, the old hand and the individual aiming to up skill or simply integrate some minor technological features into their traditional teaching.
Much had been made of the need for inductions to technology on campus, increasing support and training for new tools and the ability of institutions to offer a strategically aligned top down approach to the integration of such technologies across the campus. Rather large sums of money have been spent on purchasing proprietary packages or even writing and creating software solutions in house to enable some formal deployment of e-learning or technology enhanced learning.
Publications
Reusable Learning Object Development Guidelines and Initiatives. White Paper. David Jennings & Catherine Bruen for the National Digital Learning Repository (http://www.learningcontent.edu.ie/)
A Problem and an Opportunity: E-Learning a case for collaboration, Chapter. David Jennings in Savin-Baden M. and Wilkie K (Eds) (2006) Virtually possible? Using Problem-based Learning Online
“E-Learning A Medium For Collaboration: A Case Study Of Shared Cognitive Development” Paper. IADIS International Conference Proceedings, On Cognition And Exploratory Learning In Digital Age (Celda 2005)
Virtually Effective: The Measure Of A Learning Environment, Chapter. David Jennings in
O’Neill, G., Moore, S. and McMullin, B. (Eds.) (2005) Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.
‘Virtually Effective.’ Article. October 2004 Prelimimary Paper in BbMatters http://www.bbmatters.net/bbmattersproject/default.asp
A Problem and an Opportunity: E-Learning a case for collaboration, Chapter. David Jennings in Savin-Baden M. and Wilkie K (Eds) (2006) Virtually possible? Using Problem-based Learning Online
“E-Learning A Medium For Collaboration: A Case Study Of Shared Cognitive Development” Paper. IADIS International Conference Proceedings, On Cognition And Exploratory Learning In Digital Age (Celda 2005)
Virtually Effective: The Measure Of A Learning Environment, Chapter. David Jennings in
O’Neill, G., Moore, S. and McMullin, B. (Eds.) (2005) Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.
‘Virtually Effective.’ Article. October 2004 Prelimimary Paper in BbMatters http://www.bbmatters.net/bbmattersproject/default.asp
Research Areas & Conference Papers
“e-learning Interventions: The Impact Of The Educational Technologist And Their Role In Curriculum Development”
David Jennings & Diane Cashman. IADIS International Conference e-Society 2007
*“An Exploration of e-learning Interventions: A Case study of the Impact Of Educational Technologists In Curriculum Development”
David Jennings & Diane Cashman, ALT-C Beyond Control Learning Technology for the social network generation, 2007.
“Case Study: Vet BioEn CoP - The NDLR License Work Flow”
David Jennings & Diane Cashman. Liability Licenses and the Law: The impact of digital repositories on institutional e-strategies. An NDLR Conference. October 19th 2006.
“Adduction and Semantics: The Evolution of Personalisation.”
Developing a Framework for e-Learning. 7th Annual Conference of the ICS HE Academy, Trinity College Dublin, 29th - 31st August 2006.
“LEIDDing the way... A Guide to the Life Cycle of Reusable Learning Resource Development for the NDLR” EdTech 2006, Sligo, Annual Conference of the Irish Learning Technology Association.
Panel Discussion: "Controlling eLearning costs – A Philosophical/Historical Perspective" EdTech 2006, Sligo, Annual Conference of the Irish Learning Technology Association.
“E-Learning A Medium For Collaboration: A Case Study Of Shared Cognitive Development”
IADIS International Conference, Porto, 14-16 Dec 2005, On Cognition And Exploratory Learning In Digital Age (Celda 2005)
‘The Challenge for Educationalists - Reaching the Learners”
Assessment Tomorrow, 21st Century Techniques and Technologies to Measure Skills and Knowledge: Dublin 13th October 2005.
“The Student, The Computer & Assessment.”
Forum On Teaching And Learning, September 2005, Conway Institute, UCD.
E-Learning a Medium for Collaboration: A Case Study of Shared Cognitive Development.
European Conference of Educational Researchers 2005, Dublin.
Evaluation of the Blackboard VLE (within UCD): A Reflection on Organisational Change and the Effects on Student Learning.
Joint Study completed by Computing Services and the Centre for Teaching and Learning.
Design of an Evaluation Tool to Aid and Assess the Effective Use and Integration of E-Learning into the Curriculum.
Developed in light of research on the usage of Blackboard.
Pedagogic Advantages Offered by E-Learning, AFANet International Workshop ‘Design and Implementation of Case Studies in Animal Ethics’, June 2004.
‘Virtually Effective: The Measure of a learning environment’ Presented at ALT-C 2004. http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2004/timetable/abstract.php?abstract_id=169
David Jennings & Diane Cashman. IADIS International Conference e-Society 2007
*“An Exploration of e-learning Interventions: A Case study of the Impact Of Educational Technologists In Curriculum Development”
David Jennings & Diane Cashman, ALT-C Beyond Control Learning Technology for the social network generation, 2007.
“Case Study: Vet BioEn CoP - The NDLR License Work Flow”
David Jennings & Diane Cashman. Liability Licenses and the Law: The impact of digital repositories on institutional e-strategies. An NDLR Conference. October 19th 2006.
“Adduction and Semantics: The Evolution of Personalisation.”
Developing a Framework for e-Learning. 7th Annual Conference of the ICS HE Academy, Trinity College Dublin, 29th - 31st August 2006.
“LEIDDing the way... A Guide to the Life Cycle of Reusable Learning Resource Development for the NDLR” EdTech 2006, Sligo, Annual Conference of the Irish Learning Technology Association.
Panel Discussion: "Controlling eLearning costs – A Philosophical/Historical Perspective" EdTech 2006, Sligo, Annual Conference of the Irish Learning Technology Association.
“E-Learning A Medium For Collaboration: A Case Study Of Shared Cognitive Development”
IADIS International Conference, Porto, 14-16 Dec 2005, On Cognition And Exploratory Learning In Digital Age (Celda 2005)
‘The Challenge for Educationalists - Reaching the Learners”
Assessment Tomorrow, 21st Century Techniques and Technologies to Measure Skills and Knowledge: Dublin 13th October 2005.
“The Student, The Computer & Assessment.”
Forum On Teaching And Learning, September 2005, Conway Institute, UCD.
E-Learning a Medium for Collaboration: A Case Study of Shared Cognitive Development.
European Conference of Educational Researchers 2005, Dublin.
Evaluation of the Blackboard VLE (within UCD): A Reflection on Organisational Change and the Effects on Student Learning.
Joint Study completed by Computing Services and the Centre for Teaching and Learning.
Design of an Evaluation Tool to Aid and Assess the Effective Use and Integration of E-Learning into the Curriculum.
Developed in light of research on the usage of Blackboard.
Pedagogic Advantages Offered by E-Learning, AFANet International Workshop ‘Design and Implementation of Case Studies in Animal Ethics’, June 2004.
‘Virtually Effective: The Measure of a learning environment’ Presented at ALT-C 2004. http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2004/timetable/abstract.php?abstract_id=169
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)