If you examine the tables of contents of most eLearning systems/lessons/courses, etc., you find that the underlying educational philosophy is one of Objectivism. This theory holds that the student's mind is an empty slate that the lecturer/teacher/instructor fills up. The systems approach to this kind of eEducation has the creator of that system examine the subject to be taught, divide it up into small bits, sequence the bits in some logical order, and then put all students through the same process of learning the material in that order.
For example, eTextbooks (most of eLearning materials are some kind of electronic textbooks and called Tutorials) for learning elementary programming suggest that IF statements MUST come before LOOPING statements and so they contain chapters devoted to everything about selection, before anything is seen of repetition. These eLearning systems are reference works, not learning materials. The objectivist theory ignores the fact that such a methodology is deadly boring to most students. First, it forces them to "learn" things they already know. And second, it ignores any individual difference in learning style or preference.
Constructivist educational philosophy, on the other hand, views the student as knowledgeable and task driven. New things are learned by integrating them into what is already known and it is done primarily so that meaningful (to the person) tasks may be carried out.
Your thoughts on why the objectivist approach in eTeaching/eLearnig is used instead constructivist.
e-learning is based on e-materials which are programmed by domain experts to deliver information about a particular subject in proper sequence. In a classroom where face to face technique is used, a similar methodology is utilized. Here also the teacher develops the subject in an appropriate order so that the students can “learn” the relevant topics. The difference between the above two systems is the nature of feedback. In a classroom teaching there are many implicit modes of feedback that may occur to moderate the presentation in progress. A good teacher, in certain situation, can assess students’ understanding from their body language and in turn can generate explicit feedback by asking specific questions and make the necessary modification of the relevant presentation. In e-systems, however, assessing some thing from body language is impossible. Even if explicit questions are generated, the required modification in all such situations may not be possible. This is so because it is impossible to predict exhaustively all the possible doubts even for a very small sized closed domain. A good human instructor should be able to evolve the required modification from his/her acquired knowledge. A digital system on the other hand would have a comparatively restricted modification possibility because this will need a priory programming of the system. Though researchers are enthusiastic to achieve adaptive learning system using AI, but that is not yet a reality. Unless a research material is transformed to a usable product it is better not to employ it in the area like education.
I tend to see this as being a case of the types of environments both within universities and the virtual learning environments being used.
If you use something like Blackboard then the easiest approach is to upload materials and lock step students through them. Yes, Blackboard does allow for conditional release of resources but this isn't the same as a smart learning environment that builds a model of the student and interacts based on that model.
I would contend that lecture room design and lecture timetabling often assumes objectivist education by default.
However, I think there is also an element of time to prepare and manage constructivist approaches and a lack of knowledge by subject area experts of appropriate pedagogical patterns to assist students in learning.
@Errol: Yes, time and lack of knowledge of subject area, are two important factors.
Moreover, the lack of pedagogical models in eLearning systems is for me a very important factor. In addition, an important factor is the insufficient training of teachers in pedagogy relevant to the subject they teach (anyone can be a teacher, unfortunately), and in the design of eLearning models and software (“eLearning industry” is deficient in pedagogical knowledge).
Diana Laurillard of Institute of Education in London is interested in being able to share pedagogical patterns for eLearning. Her team just held a Learning Design Challenge specifically aimed at capturing pedagogical patterns for eLearning.
There are also people doing work on Smart/Adaptive Learning Environments who have pedagogical patterns and knowledge although they possibly don't call them that. The problem is that a lot of this isn't being picked up by mainstream education.
Everyone has their research interests and learning to teach isn't part of the focus. We have a group here talking about intelligent agents but I am not invited even though I see intelligent agents as crucial for driving Smart Learning Environments.
Teaching is seen so often as a passive exercise and not something that is active and dynamic responding to a learner's interests, enthusiasm, and background knowledge. We need to be able to demonstrate the difference and get away from the idea that the lecture is the means of teaching.
@Errol: I agree that "...even though I see intelligent agents as crucial for driving Smart Learning Environments", and about "...share pedagogical patterns for eLearning". The other directions could be:
1. “Sequencing and Navigation through Learning Content"
2. “Smart, Personaliased Learning Environments with Fuzzy Logic Student Modeling”
3. "Teaching how to teach with aim of eLearning - ePedagogy"
It is easier and more profitable to bundle objectivist content than constructivist process.
@Glen, yes you are right, unfortunately. I am afraid, but that is the answer for my question "eEducation - forty years of promises?" (https://www.researchgate.net/post/eEducation-forty_years_of_promises)
Hello
Thanks for the question and the contributions to date... well, the addition of E before every word was a fashion late 90s early 2000s... and people were taken by the hype - and did not consider much the methods!
Regards
Theodora Issa
@Theodora, yes but now days "fashion" is Mobile Learning (whatever it is) called mLearning, Cloud Learning (also, whatever it is) - cLearning, etc. It seems that a "new fashion" arrived.
Therefore, we could call all of them (x)Education, which consists of (x)Learning, (x)Teaching, (x)...
All the problems I believe come from lack of appropriate pedagogy in usage of computers in education. Also, educational communities "do not understand" what is advantages and benefits of using computers, as well as usage of entire Information and Communication Technologies, in the learning process. Further, teacher education and training need better and more comprehensive pedagogical approach as well as ICT education, in order to prepare teachers to use computers as a powerful tool in learning/teaching.
So, how many teachers in your environment know the difference between Objectivism and Constructivism? Consequently, how many “eLearning designers” know the difference between Objectivism and Constructivism? Therefore, who is “blameworthy” for, as you said “…and people were taken by the hype - and did not consider much the methods!”, and how to overcome the overthrow these problems?
You are right, the technology is just catching up to the pedagogy of collaborative learning. But, most mainstream LMS are slow to adapt.
I circumvent the system by using Google Docs: for collaborative writing, or Google Sites: for collaborative web design. Or MS OneNote for collaborative note-taking (http://dmll.jaltcall.org/2013/09/09/skydrive-or-google-drive/)
LINE BAND or similar technology like Facebook can be used for communication between project groups (http://dmll.jaltcall.org/2013/09/09/a-band-aid-lms/).
If you teach university students who can sign subject release forms, YouTube can be an outlet for collaborative project-based courses (https://www.youtube.com/user/0101001101001001).
Keep thinking outside the box, there are a lot of resources available outside of the mainstream LMS systems. And, if you get any great ideas, consider sharing them here: https://sites.google.com/site/castleclp/
@Simeon,
I agree but there are other things that we can do. Attached is a proposal that I wrote in 2004 to summarise some ideas that I had while trying to write my PhD which focussed on ways of understanding object-oriented programming. However, there is other work that has been done which explores issues directly related to Smart Learning Environments (http://kinshuk.athabascau.ca/). Professor Kinshuk and his colleagues has done quite a lot of work in adaptive learning systems. This is the direction that I am seeking to move in but my current role doesn't include any research component so I am having to pursue it in my own time.
Article Design Issues for a Scenario-Based Learning Environment
@Simeon, I agree with "...most mainstream LMS are slow to adapt" and with that Collaborative, learning through some kind of Social Networking is fine. At the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Novi Sad, we developed Pedagogical pattern called "Wiki Conquering Common Goal", where students in small groups through some kind of Wiki collaboration solve some problems and/or projects. This approach has proven to be very successful, i.e. the results were fine and the students were pleased. However, we have previously used our pedagogical pattern "Gradual improvement and development with stepped fine-tuning" based on Constructivist educational philosophy. Yeah, I have spent a lot of time in design that tasks.
Very interesting Dr. Thompson. It looks like a lot of clever programmers doing a lot of clever programming will be needed to implement such systems. What do you think the implications of such technology will be for teachers themselves?
@ Ljubomir Jerinic; thanks for raising such an interesting question - Why is Objectivism used in eLearning, instead of Constructivist approaches? Lots of interesting comments that I agree with so far!
@ Errol Thompson: in response to classroom design see Band 2012, attached, and C. Beard some work on this a while ago.
@ Ljubomir Jerinic: “anyone can be a teacher, unfortunately” – this is not necessarily correct as it depends upon which sector one teaches in. In the UK the compulsory sector (primary, secondary, 6th Form schools/colleges) & the Further Education (FE) sector(post-compulsory sector), unlike the HE sector, requires one to either have obtain a teaching qual. (PGCE, Pg.Cert., etc) or be working towards it!
The bias towards a more objectivist pedagogy is due to a combination of factors, such as teachers/lecturers responding to the Learning Outcomes approach of programme delivery which instils a very much reductionist mentality to programme delivery. This is combined with limitations in the early days of ‘software’ capability and teachers lack of training/knowledge in how to use the available packages. This later issue has received much attention form JISC, ALT, etc in the UK at least. However, the ‘skill’ and knowledge of greater blending of pedagogical approaches has been greatly curtailed by the recent financial constraints being put upon the remaining institutional staff after institutions reduce staffing numbers in response to recent events.
@ Errol: “The problem is that a lot of this isn't being picked up by mainstream education”; you will probably be pleased to know that the European Higher Education Area is pushing an agenda to seek parity of esteem between research and teaching activities, increasing the value of teaching (http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/quality-relevance_en.htm). May help in the future for such within institution arguments?
@ Dr. Jerinic,
How exciting! Problem-based learning fits perfectly with the system you have described. I teach at one institution with no LMS at all, so I have been experimenting with all kinds of social media and publicly available solutions.
The ironic results of a research study on the connection between research and teaching: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/66/4/507.short
Lane, L. (2009). Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems impact teaching. First Monday, 14(10). Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2530/2303
e-learning is based on e-materials which are programmed by domain experts to deliver information about a particular subject in proper sequence. In a classroom where face to face technique is used, a similar methodology is utilized. Here also the teacher develops the subject in an appropriate order so that the students can “learn” the relevant topics. The difference between the above two systems is the nature of feedback. In a classroom teaching there are many implicit modes of feedback that may occur to moderate the presentation in progress. A good teacher, in certain situation, can assess students’ understanding from their body language and in turn can generate explicit feedback by asking specific questions and make the necessary modification of the relevant presentation. In e-systems, however, assessing some thing from body language is impossible. Even if explicit questions are generated, the required modification in all such situations may not be possible. This is so because it is impossible to predict exhaustively all the possible doubts even for a very small sized closed domain. A good human instructor should be able to evolve the required modification from his/her acquired knowledge. A digital system on the other hand would have a comparatively restricted modification possibility because this will need a priory programming of the system. Though researchers are enthusiastic to achieve adaptive learning system using AI, but that is not yet a reality. Unless a research material is transformed to a usable product it is better not to employ it in the area like education.
Dear Ljubomir
Education supported by new digital technologies was boosted so the broadband ourselves , and the Internet has become a vehicle for distance communication . I believe that soon , the term distance education may no longer exist . Do not talk on the phone " at a distance " , simply talk on the phone . Do not send e - mail " from a distance " , just send yourself an email or an attached file . Likewise , it does not teach or learn " the distance " , simply teach or learn with the use of available technologies , the presence or non-presence way , with all the participants gathered in the same place at the same time or do not . Would be a more appropriate term education supported by new technologies or simply education. Central issue is not the use of new technologies , but rather redemption and application of knowledge already developed by researchers in the fields of education, psychology of learning , communication, cognition , among other
Revolutionary new Digital Technologies is an excellent opportunity to rethink education and replace the archaic methodologies and strategies that stood still in time
Thus , the possibilities for interaction between the participants are well diversified and expanded. A major advantage of this method is the integration of different media in a single medium or vehicle of communication : the Internet .
Just to add to what Anup has said above, in e learning, where body language and verbal replies are not possible, it may be thought the safest to assume that the learner has no existing knowledge at all to build constructivism links. So use the objectivist approach. Perhaps? What do you all think?
Dear Miranda,
Possibly you are correct, but this is a dangerous approach that denies the fundamental concept of learning. Because I believe learning means creating correlation between the new input information and the already stored knowledge in the learner’s brain (constructivism).
So true Prof Anup. I did ask on 1 of my threads, concerning e-learning, and one person replied that a computer is cold, heartless, how difficult it is to teach values.
But we are constructivists, and get our students to be active learners forging links :)
I think that e learning in most cases does not succeed except in special cases like literature only
We use eLearning texts because as educators in a learning environment with students of such unequal capacities-- including many woefully unequipped to learn--, we have grown accustomed never to take knowledge for granted in our students. Use of eLearning materials presupposes that no one will experience the boredom you mention. We are accustomed to blaming this lack of student preparation on the educational level beneath our own. This shifting of the blame downward is sometimes fallacious
The basic problem with e-learning is that it provides access to a set of materials accessible to all and an absence of interaction that one finds in an ordinary classroom.
This means that e-learning is typically wooden, falling back on a objective approach.
This is precisely Nelson Orringer's point (e-learning for students with unequal capabilities).
One point of confusion may be the difference between the prescriptive and emergent approaches to online learning. (1) Typically, institutions attempting to introduce e-learning have attempted to prescribe for learning which is fine for some topics and tasks. However, if the learning required is more process oriented and emergent then a prescriptive approach is fatal. In that case some of the newer approaches to online learning are clearly indicated, specifically the models developed from connectivist theory; personal learning environments (PLEs) or massively open online courses (MOOCs).
Still people must be wary of the stultifying black hole of institutional ossification and recognize the distinction between the classic form of connectivist MOOC and the coopted institutionalized xMOOC. (2)
(1)Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/883
(2) Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. eLearnspace. Blog. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/
eLearning doesn't have to be without interaction. I participated in a eLearning exercise a couple of weeks ago. The organisers of the course used live video sequences with students able to respond via twitter. When I was first involved in eLearning, we used mailing lists and phone conferences. I have participated in Skype sessions and Google Hangouts. All of these encourage interaction.
We design the eLearning experience and it is up to us to provide the interaction mechanisms. We have not exhausted the potential for interaction using computing technology. Unfortunately the most dominant Virtual Learning Environments are dumb by design and tend to discourage good interaction.
eLearning is a means to an end not and end in itself. The constructivist vs. objectivism isn't really the fault of eLearning, its just the current arena in which these debates are played out.
My view would be that technologists tend to construct platforms that are content delivery systems, because that is what they do by instinct and what they have been told to do by University/College/School administrators and managers. Constructivisim is something educationalists bring to the technology, if they are allowed to by the institutions that employ them.
Dear followers,
I have opened new discussion at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Lets_try_to_resolve_terminology_gap_what_is_difference_between_Pedagogy_Didactics_and_Methodics
Dear followers,
...and the old one at https://www.researchgate.net/post/eEducation-forty_years_of_promises#rg-injektor-generated-rg_modules_publictopics_actions_PostCommentItemProxy_530b39d6d039b14d6c8b4653-
Hello,
I think many e-learning programs boil down to instructionism and not in wider educational concepts. What I have seen is an excess of education and very little education. The absence of concepts like social-interactionist and most concepts in e-learning courses is real and worse, even the idea that it is possible to learn without a teacher in the traditional sense. The fact is that the sheer fixation instructionism and content has been confused with education in e-learning. It seems that the discussion has summarized the intelligent learning systems and very little human interaction, social learning and active contact with the learning objects from the human and social interaction.
Certainly there are ways to be redone ...
Regards,
S.
Possibly the reason behind the fact that Objectivism dominates over Constructivist approaches in e-learning is the orthodox attitude of the people advocating such system. This is orthodox because the magic letter “e” is considered sacrosanct and therefore use of any other methodology along with “e” is considered prohibitive. One can not deny the power of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and therefore there is no reason to restrict its use in education. But that does not mean that the e-learning system should be unsupervised. Using ICT virtual classroom can easily be implemented. Using this methodology the knowledge and skill of a good teacher can be utilized by a large number of geographically distributed students. In a virtual classroom a student can ask questions and therefore it does simulate a closed loop system. The only difference will be the absence of assessing students’ reaction through their body language. I feel un-supervised hallowed e-learning system should be replaced by the virtual classroom concept.
Dear Anup Bandyopadhyay,
You are entirely correct. But I think it is more serious that we are watching and the risk we run is deeper than the discussion we're doing. Technology can change the course of education leaving behind a broader concept of education and strengthen a restricted concept of education (instructionism). I think we have a philosophical discussion about education concept that has not been touched here and what we should do. I do not like much that is showing how distance education ... maybe we should change the term e-learning by the term e-education. Maybe this would help broaden the discussion ...
Regards,
S.
Simply, using Objectivism over a Constructivist model is continuing the status quo of education despite research that shows students entering school are not empty vessels to be filled with knowledge from the teacher. Designing instruction for e-learning using a constructivist model in conjunction with the Socratic Questioning in thinking, teaching, and learning will further improve the quality of education provided through e-learning and the traditional classroom.
It is time consuming to design instruction that will challenge all ability levels in e-learning because not all Learning Management Systems (LMS) are created equal in the ability to design a quality e-learning environment. Designing online activities that show mastery of the content is more difficult than assigning reading and requiring students to take a multiple-choice quiz to show mastery.
How many professors and or instructors are willing to venture out of their comfort zone to learn to teach a new method using a constructivist theory of student-centered learning? Common Core State Standards are beginning to incorporate critical thinking at a younger age. Washington State has digital citizenship incorporated with technology for the 21st century because these are the components that the future workforce, government, and society will need.
It seems more likely that teachers, instructors, and professors are the ones who will spearhead the movement for change in education to eliminate the objectivist perspective that has produced inferior educational opportunities for a good portion of society.
I just designed a course called Policy Paradox based on the textbook by Deborah Stone and this course has asynchronous discussion boards, weekly synchronous chat session, a group research project, and written assignments. If I were to teach this course, it would be up to me to make my presence known in the classroom by responding to students in Q&A forum, or asking questions that requires students to think more critically and deeper about the content in the weekly discussion board. This level of interactivity enhances the student learning experience, creates a sense of community and relationship between everyone, and minimizes the feeling of isolation in e-learning. Using relevant real-world examples and activities brings the content to life. As you can tell, I am an advocate for constructivist theory and Socratic Questioning in Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. I also advocate for behavioral learning as educators model the behavior expected by the students.
Stephanie,
I like your answer. We must step outside the comfort area to push the bounds of learning to new levels. We have destroyed so many minds by the way we make people learn that it is criminal.
It is not okay to suppress people in their religious beliefs but it is okay to teach them not to think for themselves. We must change the system to free the thoughts of the ones that will lead us to a better understanding.
The main issue in this question is Why Objectivism is used in e-Learning, instead of Constructivist approaches. All most from all the posts it is apparent that constructivist method is the desirable approach an a good teacher always use this methodology. However, as suggested in the question. the e-learning environment does not include that. This is so because the methodology may not be always modeled by a definite algorithm. To explain this, I consider teaching of division in elementary arithmetic. All of us know that division is modeled by repeated subtraction and therefore the algorithmic approach to design an e-teaching material related to this should be to correlate repeated subtraction and division. But in practice we some time do it in a different way. We take 16(say) similar objects. Put them together. And then partition them in 4 groups containing four objects each. We leave the concept of repeated subtraction at this stage. However some students get this idea themselves which again is a non algorithmic procedure.
Dear @ Anup Bandyopadhyay , you're right . But a premise which I consider quite strong constructivism concerns the social interaction in constructing knowledge . With the current and interactive features that offers technology-based platforms , we can build more suited to constructivist e-learning courses .
I do not think that is only because of limits , as well as our colleague Stephanie Stofiel showed in his post , but I see a ( global ? ) Trend of a narrowing of the concept of education that takes effect . In my opinion not only in e-learning though here is more noticeable because the medium itself already leads to a more technical and limited practice.
I feel that the philosophy ( and philosophy of education ) , the slow reflection (which does not mean inefficient or immobility ) and political thinking which involves all things get in the background of a stronger form .
Well , it's a feeling I have about the e-learning and education in general.
Regards,
S.
@Anup and Sérgio , yes fine example and thought "... feel that the philosophy ( and philosophy of education ) , the slow reflection". Let me add something. Imagine that you eLaerning system guides (and/or allow) you through the design of such example for learning division. Simply because a lot of teacher do not understand what is constructivist approach. Help teacher (or eLearning lesson designer) with some advice, like “Why do not use nice lady who is giving 16 apples to 4 kids”. The lady gives them one apple, then another one, etc. Then you repeat simulation with some breaks, and ask your students (or eLearning system "ask") after “first round”: “How many apples left our lady?”, “How did you come to that?” etc.
Hello @ Ljubomir Jerinic , I feel we're both great enthusiasts of e-learning . But I can capture some differences in our conceptions . I would say , first, that you are more radical than I as to his belief in " machine learning " or , put another way , an intelligence system that is able to teach . I want to make clear that my position may be ignorance or a deeper knowledge about computational intelligence ( artificial intelligence ) , its features and what it can do .
Perhaps at this point I'm a little older than you . I think very important contact and interaction between people , including the mentoring process. Maybe it's just an outdated philosophical discussion .
I am aware of the development of intelligent learning environments ( ILE ) , the intelligent tutors (ITS ) and others based on environments and intelligent tutors as computer-assisted instruction ( ICAI ) for example . I admire all these advances .
I'm just not so sure of the direction everything is taking :-)
Thinking about a broad concept of education 'm afraid that we are losing something .
On the other hand , am a tech enthusiast like you ( despite not having his arsenal of knowledge) .
This post is not a clash of ideas as it may seem . 'm A federal state in Brazil called Minas Gerais . It is not a state like Rio de Janeiro with ports and so open to new ideas . I'm back from the mountains ( well, at least from what we call mountains here in Brazil l0l ) and we have a suspicious mind and reserved . l0l Maybe it's just that.
My thought still makes a distinction between teaching and educating . I'm sure that intelligent systems teach , but I'm not so sure that educate . I think this is the central point of my question .
I know not brake up the course of history and technological development and I see that you are ahead of important things I admire .
But I believe our sense of humanity to reconcile things and generate a great future for us .
Always grateful for the attention and dialogue with you !
Regards,
S.
@Sergio, yes I agree with your thought "...I am aware of the development of intelligent learning environments (ILE), the intelligent tutors (ITS) and others based on environments and intelligent tutors as computer-assisted instruction (ICAI) for example. I admire all these advances..."
Although a good part of my research I work these areas (usage computers in education), I am aware that we have to separate the education and teaching/learning. I strongly believe that teaching is an art. Also, I assume that any "smart" machines cannot replace a good teacher. But, they ("smart" computers) could help her/him to be even better teachers. That is way I ask this question “Why is Objectivism used in eLearning, instead of Constructivist approaches?”, to encourage them, to do more and more - to be better and better teachers.
This issue is a continuation of questions that I asked at https://www.researchgate.net/post/eEducation-forty_years_of_promises. To equalize the terminology I put another question at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Lets_try_to_resolve_terminology_gap_what_is_difference_between_Education_Pedagogy_Didactics_and_Methodics.
Hello @ ljubomir jerinic is always enlightening the opportunity to talk with you and here has been a great learning space. I respect and admire very much your work. I'll try to talk to the other group also equalization of terminology and see what I can learn there too :-)
Regards,
S.
We assume that the students do not know anything because we are smarter than them and if we let them be creative they my unseat us from our top set in the educational system. So what ends up happening is we tell them this is the only way and they need to ignore their thoughts in favor of our thoughts.
This is the primary reason science seems to advance at a snails pace when it should be advancing by leaps and bounds. Discoveries should lead to great new things very quick but we tell people that they are wrong so often that they give up and we slow down.
For example about 13 years ago as a graduate student in the college I was in I asked my Thesis adviser about a thought I had concerning an aspect of Physics. I knew he had some expertise in the field and the I had a thought that the latest experiment which I had just read on the subject had shown so issues which pointed to a different way to look at the issue.
He laughed out loud and told me I had no understanding if the issue and the thoughts I had were just wrong. I let the issue go thinking I was an idiot for even saying it out loud. Less than 18 months later I was reading an article in the same journal and saw that I was correct in my thoughts down to remarkable degree. The was pointed out by the article of a PhD in the field and it was then that I realized that our educational system had deep flaws that could not be just undone.
There are many great things that come from the way we educate people and many great people doing the education. We just need to stop thinking we are on the edge of knowing everything there is to know and listen to the people that see it differently with an open mind.
Yes, we should never underestimate our students. Education is a two way learning process between students and teachers - we learn, or should aim to, learn from each other. Not sure how this answers Ljubomir's question though, except to point to the need for e-learning to facilitate this joint learning between students and teachers.
@ George and Colin,
The main advantage of usage computers in education, i.e. learning and teaching, in some eLaerning system or LMS or ITS, whatever, is the possibility that the user (student) could communicate with the computer, to have a dialogue with the computer, i.e. ask questions and get answers, like communication with a human teacher. I’ve proposed introduction explanation in eLearning (look https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233869322_OBOA_Model_of_Explanation_Module_in_Intelligent_Tutoring_Shell?ev=prf_pub). Also I’ve used Agent-based technology to help teacher to create their eLaerning lesson (of course using Constructivist approach), as well as to collect all information on students response, so your discussion could be interesting for let say “reverse” improvements of the eLearning lesson, topic, system, doesn't matter what.
Article OBOA Model of Explanation Module in Intelligent Tutoring Shell
I think you are correct. There are many ways that the e-learning systems can be a big advantage. The only issue I have is that if we never communicate by talking to people we may not understand what we need to. e-learning needs to be helped with group sections where the ideas are all considered and then either put forward or put on the table. I have been helped more by questions that on the outset seemed wrong to even ask than I have by just going down the path that everyone else in the class is traveling down.
We always need the ability to see and hear others convey their thoughts and ways to look at things. Video conferencing in the e-learning systems would be needed to help with this type of learning.
@George Yes, together with collaborative learning/teaching through discussion groups, forums, wikis... based on constructivism
@Ljubomir. Hello Ljubomir, your thoughts about constructivism are very interesting. And i suppose e-learning trainings for students of high school may win much using the approach.
My interests are in the sphere of short term professional trainings. And i think how can we integrate the constructivist approach into 3-5 days special courses. Any thoughts or experience?
This question interests me a good deal in relation to the classroom. Based on work by Carol Dweck, Ken Bain, and others, many of us at Framingham State University are practicing and looking into new classroom methods. I would like to see how these are applied in computer-science classrooms. One easy step is to introduce any topic with a series of questions for the student to consider, questions to generate curiosity in a shared inquiry.
I'm not sure how well this approach fits into systems whose mission is to "deliver content." I know that some distance learning is highly interactive.
@ David Keil. I don't know if this answers your question David and I used it in a science context, not computer science. The difficulty was with motivating some secondary school classes to engage with topics with prescribed outcomes that were assessed. I heard a teacher talk about a technique he called wondering and adopted it to this context. The idea is that you get the students to generate questions (you do not provide them) around a topic ( I used it with topics like digestion, water, forces which were current at the time I was teaching). You give the students stems such as "I wonder if...? I wonder why....?...what. how, and so on. They can use each stem as often, or little, as they like to generate questions that they would like answered on the topic. I collected their questions through class discussion, but other ways would be possible. However you collect them, then comes the teacher's late night work as you match the questions to the learning objectives and find a way to organise the learning experiences to both match those objectives and allow the students to find answers to their questions. This may involve rewriting the course and activity headings to match their questions. You keep track with them of which of their questions have been answered- we did this by looking at their list together at the end of each session and ticking them off, but again other methods are possible.. There may also be a need to discuss with them which questions have not been answered and why.
To my regret, I did not keep the evidence of the success of this approach when I retired, not realising it would be useful as I moved for a time into research. Perhaps you, or others, can adapt it to your circumstances and gather such evidence. The reason i highlight it here is that I found it useful in a context where my mission was to 'deliver content' in encouraging inquiry by the students.
You can also find some descriptions of how teachers teaching science at various school levels in a European project I worked on dealt with the deliver content/ inquiry dilemma in materials available or referred to on my RG home page. Hope this helps.
@ David Keil & Colin A Smith .... apologies to others as this is abit off track!
You guys would/should be following another question on RG that is asking the question about whether we should be teaching 'content based' courses in a 21st cent. society - search for "Which skills must 21st century teachers have to promote high quality learning?" Its been very interesting!
Also, 'student researchers' has received much attention recently as a pedagogy - see Healy, Jenkins & Lea's (2014) report for the HEA: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/college-based-he/research-based-curricula
Also see attached for a selection of student centred pedagogy from a college setting!
Thanks Angus. I do follow that questions as well, though I do not seem to have had recent notifications of answers to it - will check that out. However, I do not think that either you or we are 'off tack.' The issue of content (or at least heavily prescriptive content) is relevant to the original question here, although I accept that my last answer was a direct response to David, rather than a reference to Ljubomir's question. Getting through such curricula pushes teachers away from constructivist approaches - when using eLearning or not. Whether or not that is the best form of curriculum is another question - it is the reality for many teachers and is one (possibly just one) why practice (including eLearning) does not always match constructivist theory. That reality means that, if they want to be more constructivist, teachers have to do so while still ticking the boxes of having covered the required content - possible, but does require work. The materials and textbook (and I guess the eLearning approaches) they are provided with do not always help, being focussed on delivery of content. I guess the other issue your answer raises is that teachers, curriculum developers, (eLearning developers???) and even academics are not always aware of alternative models, such as 'student researchers'. That is where the question becomes not only one of what skills teachers should have, but also teacher knowledge - knowledge of a repertoire of possible solutions to the pedagogical problems they are faced with in their own contexts. Education is tremendously complex and all questions have some relation to each other.
@For all Followers: What happens with "Project CS4EDU: Computer Science for Education". Namely, in 2008, the National Science Foundation (US) started the ambitious effort, project CS/10,000, which supports developing a new high school curriculum for computing, revising the computer science AP curriculum, and having computer science taught in 10,000 schools by 10,000 well-qualified teachers by 2015.
Does anyone know anything about this project?
Objective curriculum agendas are a feature of the "factory model" of public school education, where the curriculum is set by School Boards staffed with political bureaucrats who are servants of the State rather than servants of the children.
Constructivist models are typically found in alternative schools which are not beholden to government funding and oversight by government bureaucracies.
Constructivist models are well enough for short-term adult learning courses, especially blended ones. Being practically oriented these forms of trainings aimed at concrete local results created by a single student or a team of students.
hi
Very wise comments
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1215217&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1215217
Hi Ljubomir,
If you want to read the paper "Constructivism vs. objectivism: where is difference for designers of e-learning environments?" you have to pay for it....
Helena
I agree with the colleague that "
e-learning is based on e-materials which are programmed by domain experts to deliver information about a particular subject in proper sequence. In a classroom where face to face technique is used, a similar methodology is utilized. Here also the teacher develops the subject in an appropriate order so that the students can “learn” the relevant topics'
This approach was used in our on-line Educational Platform -www.TEST.AECP.AM
@Helena:
Conference Paper Constructivism vs. Objectivism: Where is difference for Desi...
Article Constructivism vs. objectivism
Dear Ljubomir:
I found your question on objectivism vs constructivism through the discussion thread on the postings in regard to digital literacy and have similar research interests in regard to eLearning. But to not stray too far from this discussion thread, Is it because the objectivist reductionist way of doing things have been the dominant scientific and academic philosophy in the West for centuries and we are just beginning to grope our way towards a new paradigm? Also programmers -- my son is a software engineer -- seem to think differently than others trained in different disciplines but I'm not sure what that difference is from other people in different disciplines such as math, biology, etc.
Mike
From Bruno De Lièvre
"" Objectivism is easier to manage but.. the question i s about the pedagogical consistency"
Yes, Bruno, I agree, put it on question thread, please, to "alive" discussion
To Ehasan: The answer is... Maybe teachers do not know a lot about Constructivist educational philosophy? Or... they are "lazy" to change themselves?
I think that many eLearning teachers do not have a theoretical framework for their online curriculum. This is because there is little training and mentoring available for creation of online courses of study, or training is only about the technology. So many people design their courses poorly.
Our educational system has long been so atomized, that it is difficult to think of education otherwise. But, those of us who have experienced some sort of experiential learning know how exciting it is to make the connections in our own heads. To frame a lesson constructivist way takes a different frame of mind, not spoon-feeding atomized material, but constructing a learning path that will lead learners to an ah-ha! moment of discover. (He-he! We teachers planned the route to the ah-ha! point.) It takes more time to conceive of such a endeavor. We know how to atomize things. Students are used to the spoon. Garbage-in, Garbage-out. Let's call it "education" ... even though it really isn't. We need to train teachers about constructivist teaching in a constructivist way. We cannot expect people to teach in a way that they do not know. Part of the problem is knowledge of constructivist teaching, part is inertia - we are used to doing what we do and the market accepts it.
Yes, Steve, teaching is ART, classroom is stage... yes so I agree with " We need to train teachers about constructivist teaching in a constructivist way. ".
Thank you
Michael, there is not enough training and courses in modern Pedagogy for teachers (at least in Serbia) so a lot of courses (not only in eLearning) are design very, very poorly
Constructivist approaches based on experience so if you want using e-learning you should be have clear view about how increase experience in e-learning environment
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education