This
week, we will look at learning theory and how it applies to distance education
course design. Specifically, I subscribe
to a constructivist learning theory, so that is where I will begin.
Constructivism
is a theory which learning takes place actively within the learner, as he or
she builds increasingly complex concepts on the foundation of simpler and previously
assimilated concepts (Dunn, 2005). The
theory was popularized by the research of early educational theorists Piaget
and Pestalozzi (Gutek, 1995) though it could be said to have been pioneered
thousands of years ago by Socrates himself in his Socratic Method. According to his method, the teacher educates
a student by asking leading questions which guide the student toward “discovery”
of the intended knowledge or concept mastery.
Newer
theories support the overall concept of constructivism as well. Cognitive load theory has gained some modern
traction in the educational world. Research in this avenue indicates that the
efficiency of new concept assimilation can be positively affected by reducing extraneous
cognitive load by introducing new concepts in reference to previously assimilated
concepts (Sweller, 2007).
Adherents
to this educational philosophy must be purposeful in the design of their
curriculum as every step is built on the previous step and must therefore be in
a very specific order. Traditional synchronous
education can be handled in a less planned method because the educator has
ample time to adjust.
The necessity to
plan ahead causes the concept of constructivism to lend itself particularly
well to many distance education applications because it also makes assessment
more predictable and definable. An end
goal can be broken down into ever more basic tasks that can then each be
defined for the student and then be easily and individually assessed.
Defining the
concepts required to master each task inherent in the end goal provides a basic
curriculum. Ordering those concepts so
that they build on one another further refines the curriculum and creates a
natural schedule. From here one only
needs to locate the proper resources and begin lesson planning. This inherent
organization is one reason a constructivist approach will be a key element in my
own approach to course design, especially that of distance learning.
There are some
drawbacks to truly following a constructivist learning theory however. For example, traditional methods of assessing
subjects such as history or geography have more to do with rote memorization
and constructivism provides little aid in disassembling the component concepts
of these subjects.
For a more
complete explanation of my educational philosophy, visit my homepage at http://www.live4hisglory.net/portfolio/index.html.
Dunn, Sheila G.
(2005). Philosophical Foundations of
Education, Connecting Philosophy to Theory and Practice, Pearson Education Inc.
Gutek,
G, (1995), A History of the Western Educational Experience, 2nd Ed.,
Chapter 10, Republicanism, Revolution,
and Education, Waveland Press Inc., Long Grove IL
Sweller,John. (2007). Human
Cognitive Architecture, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications
and Technology, (31), 369-381, Taylor and Francis Group
I agree that constructivism is the preferred approach for online education. In fact, this is consistent with the history of online education.
ReplyDeleteIn 1980, Keegan defined DE in terms of six characteristics. His definition, specifically the last characteristic (e.g. learner as individual), reflected the philosophy underlying the early approach to DE. Written materials and technologies were used to transfer information to individual students; communication infrastructures were used to broadcast lectures and educational information via the television and the computer. Online learning modules were used to disseminate information to students. Learner independence and the privatization of learning was emphasized and interaction among students and faculty was not deemed essential. This traditional DE approach was based upon behavioral theories of learning (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992) with the underlying assumption that objective knowledge should be transmitted to individual students for absorption and recall. The entire learning process was faculty-centered. Effectiveness was determined by the teacher’s ability to communicate information through the selected medium and the student’s ability to recall the information on objective, criterion based tests (Jonassen & Land, 2000). Measures of online learning effectiveness including grades and criterion-based tests were primarily measures of surface learning (i.e. understanding and absorbing existing information; lower levels of thinking).
Into the 1990s, researchers and educators recognized that learners were not responding favorably to traditional instructional methods, and the employment of behavioral strategies in the online environment resulted in unsatisfied learners, frustrated faculty, and high attrition rates (Carr, 2000; Chyung,1999;). White, Roberts, and Brannan (2003) acknowledged that “unless the [online] course is reconceptualized using an interactive learning pedagogy, the results are nothing more than a correspondence course via e-mail and that simply transferring a traditional classroom-based course to an online format is doomed to failure” (p. 172). Consequently, the faculty-centered, lecture-based model was exchanged for the student-centered learning model (; Dobson & Grosb, 2001; Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Offir, Lev, & Bezalel, 2008) and a shift from seeing the learner as a passive obtainer of information to an active gatherer and constructor of knowledge was made. Educators adopted online teaching strategies based upon the theories of constructivism and social constructivism. For example, technologies, such as discussion forums and blogs, were used to facilitate online discussion and interaction among students and teachers. Although some researchers still suggest that some students prefer to work individually and that interaction may simply be an aspect of the classroom associated with well-being rather than learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003;), critical online effectiveness research has emerged to demonstrate that internal and socially negotiated dialogue is vital for the advancement of higher order learning, and interaction is essential to the promotion of deep learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Jonassen & Lard, 2000; Moore,1993). Interaction, sense of community, social presence, critical thinking, and deep learning are constructs that have been identified as crucial measurements of quality and effective online teaching and learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Moore, 1989; Rovai, 2002a).
Now that I have probably bred you with the history of DE I would like further clarification on the following statement, “Traditional synchronous education can be handled in a less planned method because the educator has ample time to adjust. The necessity to plan ahead causes the concept of constructivism to lend itself particularly well to many distance education applications because it also makes assessment more predictable and definable.” How is this so? Does not a behaviorist approach require a more ”predictable” assessment?
Your point that “The necessity to plan ahead causes the concept of constructivism to lend itself particularly well to many distance education applications because it also makes assessment more predictable and definable,” (paragraph 5) is not the same as my personal experience. In my classes (I am a science teacher) I find that my assessments are neither well-defined in advance nor predictable, since students using inquiry need to be evaluated by their individual progress and efforts. Building a distance learning course will demand some more definitive assessments because the students are not with you, but when “live” students use inquiry (a truly constructivist-friendly methodology), they may not arrive at the same conclusions, place, or understanding. I have to be ready to assess each just as each student must construct their own understanding of the discipline. While this means some things are predictable, daily formative assessments are often as varied as the students themselves. It pays to have a good reference book for assessment such as Science Formative Assessment (Keeley, 2008) to assist me, but even a resource with some great suggestions is not a cookbook for perfect assessment. I rely on the constructivist approach daily, and I need to be able to think on my feet.
ReplyDeleteReference
Keeley, P. (2008). Science formative assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
I feel that the Constructivism theory has a strong foundation but could also present some challenges in an educational setting. The idea of allowing students to build upon their prior knowledge and former learning experiences, is a great concept. This approach can allow students the ability to make connections between their learnings and therefore make the retention rate of the material taught increase. This will also affect the students ability to move information from their short term memory to their long term memory. I could honestly see this concept of the theory benefitting my students in my kindergarten classroom.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge for the constructivism theory could be the role of the teacher. As you mentioned, the teacher uses a variety of methods to lead the students towards discovery in their learning. I feel that this could possibly engage the students more in the learning process but I do feel that the direct instrucion portion of a learning enviornment is crucial when teaching. I say this because as a kindergarten teacher, I see how my students learn when I challenge them with leading questions and they are able to make those connections with their prior knowledge, but I also see their academic gains from me facilitating the learning.