Paper presented at the 1998 Teaching and Learning Forum, held at
the University of Western Australia.
Models of learning appropriate to
educational applications of information technology
Dr Rob Phillips
This paper will present a review of
learning models appropriate for educational applications of
Information Technology (IT). A range of models will be presented and
their strengths and weaknesses discussed. Firstly, two major and
pervasive theories of learning in the field of educational psychology
will be described. Objectivism and Constructivism are sometimes
thought of as mutually exclusive, but in reality there is a continuum
between the two. Current thinking indicates that it is
appropriate to develop computer-based learning materials which are
biased towards the constructivist end of the continuum, but others
contend that a well-designed piece of courseware should incorporate
the most appropriate aspects of each learning theory. In this paper,
four different models of learning which share aspects of constructivism
and objectivism will be described. These are the Laurillardian model of
Guided-Discovery Learning; the Situated Cognition Theory; Cognitive
Flexibility Theory; and a recent "input, process and output" model by
Reeves. The four models have many similarities, but different
emphases, and this paper will discuss ways in which these models can
be applied to particular applications of educational technology.
Introduction
Although there are many theories
of learning in the field of educational psychology, two major and
pervasive theories well represented in the literature are
Objectivism and Constructivism. These are often portrayed as
mutually exclusive (Marra and Jonassen, 1993), but Reeves (Reeves, 1992)
has pointed out that there is a continuum between objectivism and
constructivism. In the objectivist theory (Marra and Jonassen, 1993),
a nominalistic view of knowledge is held. Knowledge is thus regarded as
existing independently of any human experience and the role of the
learner is to acquire it. Objectivists place a strong emphasis on
defining learning objectives and implicitly assume that the learner is
an empty vessel, to be filled by the instructor (Reeves, 1992). A
strength of objectivism is its ability to address novice learning
situations. However, objectivism is not a suitable approach to use for
many aspects of university learning. Critics of objectivism claim that
there is little scope for dealing with individual learner differences
(Marra and Jonassen, 1993), and it is doubtful that complex knowledge
structures can be adequately represented via lists of pre-defined
instructional objectives. Marra and Jonassen also differ with "the
objectivist's long-standing presumption that instruction can externally
control what individuals learn". Laurillard (Laurillard, 1993)
identifies a further problem with the objectivist approach, in that "the
analysis into components of the teaching-learning process is not
followed by any synthesis". At university, students not only have to
learn knowledge and skills, they also have to learn how to think and make
judgments. In this age of rapid change, students need to prepare
themselves for lifelong learning (Candy et al., 1994). The
Constructivist epistemology (Marra and Jonassen, 1993) seeks to
address these issues. Constructivism posits that reality is more in
the mind of the knower, and the knower constructs or interprets a
reality from his or her perceptions and prior experience. In this view,
the student constructs his or her own knowledge from the environment
s/he is in. The task of the teacher is to provide material and guide the
learner in ways that encourage students to synthesise their own
knowledge and integrate it into an enlarged cognitive structure in the
process. The constructivist approach assumes that learners can build
their own knowledge, so the student is viewed as an autonomous learner
and inquirer. A major goal of the constructivist approach is that the
learning environment is as rich as possible, and interactive multimedia
has clear possibilities for producing rich learning environments which
the student can explore at will. However, a drawback of the
constructivist approach is that it assumes the student has research skills,
which may not in fact be the case. Current thinking indicates that
it is appropriate to develop interactive multimedia learning materials
reflecting the constructivist end of the continuum (Marra and Jonassen,
1993). Gillespie (Gillespie, 1995), contends that a well-designed piece
of courseware should incorporate the most appropriate aspects of each
learning theory. In this paper, four different models of learning which
share aspects of constructivism and objectivism will be described. The
four models have many similarities, but different emphases.
The four learning models
Laurillard
Laurillard (Laurillard, 1993,
Laurillard, 1994) approaches the issue pragmatically from the viewpoint of
student learning. She argues that there are four main aspects of the
teaching-learning process, and she has analysed different educational media
in terms of these aspects. The aspects are: | Discussion | | between the teacher and learner at the level of
descriptions | | Interaction |
| between the learner and some aspect of the
world defined by the teacher |
| Adaptation | | of the world by the
teacher and action by the learner |
| Reflection | | on the learner's
performance by both teacher and learner |
Laurillard argues that the only use of technology
which can meet these aims is the "multimedia tutorial simulation",
characterised in terms of guided-discovery learning. Her schema is based
on forming an information rich environment in which the student has
control in discovering knowledge, but the discovery is supported and
scaffolded by extra guidance functions (Laurillard, 1993) which provide
support and feedback for subsequent learning. These functions are analogous
to the coaching and scaffolding at critical times proposed in the
Situated Cognition Theory. Phillips (Phillips, 1997, Chapter 2) has
analysed the guidance functions proposed by Laurillard (Laurillard,
1993), identifying those which may currently be feasibly implemented in
an IMM program. These functions can also be classified as cognitive
tools, as defined by Jonassen and Reeves (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996), who
maintain that the computer is most effective in education when it is
used as a cognitive tool to assist students to construct their own
understanding. The Laurillardian model is very general, and does not
really specify how the various parts of the model may be achieved. For
example, Interaction can be achieved in any number of unspecified ways.
Situated Cognition Theory provides a more specific set of criteria.
Situated cognition theory
The Situated Cognition Theory of Brown,
Collins and Duguid (Brown et al., 1989, Herrington and Oliver, 1995) seeks
to reflect the way the knowledge will be used in real-life by providing
authentic context which:
| has authentic activities; | | gives
access to expert performances and the modelling of processes; |
| provides multiple roles and perspectives; |
| supports collaborative construction of
knowledge; | | provides coaching and
scaffolding at critical times; | | promotes
reflection; | | enables tacit knowledge to be
made explicit; | | provides for integrated
assessment of learning within the tasks. |
This approach attempts to place the learning
activity in an environment that closely parallels a real world
situation, essentially in an authentic context that reflects the way
that knowledge will be used in real-life (Herrington and Oliver, 1995).
It is sometimes called a Cognitive Apprenticeship. For example, the
Birds of Antarctica project (Maor and Phillips, 1996, Phillips
and Maor, 1996) seeks to teach secondary students scientific inquiry
skills by allowing them to interact with actual observations taken by
Australian Antarctic Division staff on board supply and research vessels
travelling to and from Antarctica. Therefore, we chose to situate the
learning in a simulated ship-board environment. Part of the
Situated Cognition approach is to provide coaching and support to
students at critical times (Herrington and Oliver, 1995). Gradually, the
support is removed until students are able to stand on their own. In the
Birds of Antarctica project, the amount of data available and the range
of behaviour of the data lead to a very complex environment. While
the program was designed to simplify this complexity, the complexity is
still present, and therefore students need guidance in coping with it. A
range of measures was provided whereby students could be supported. A
guided tour was designed especially to help novice students use the
different options of the program and to navigate through the program.
After the user becomes familiar with the technical use of the program
and can easily navigate through the various data (e.g. observational
data and display data), the user is introduced to the steps of
scientific investigations suitable to the constructivist learning
environment. This guides them in planning and conducting investigations.
The expert user, by now, is able to explore and design any investigation
within the simulated learning environment.
Cognitive flexibility theory
Not all learning problems can be treated using an
'apprenticeship' model. In abstract fields it is not sensible to use a
Situated Learning approach. We cannot experience a chemical reaction at
the molecular scale, so we cannot simulate this real world environment.
The Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Feltovich et al., 1989, Spiro et
al., 1988, Spiro et al., 1987, Jacobson et al., 1996) shares some
similarities with Situated Cognition Theory, and is applicable to
abstract situations. Cognitive Flexibility Theory advocates a learning
environment which includes:
| using multiple knowledge representations |
| linking abstract concepts in cases to depict knowledge in use |
| demonstrating the conceptual interconnectedness or
web-like nature of complex knowledge |
| emphasising knowledge assembly rather than reproductive memory | | introducing both conceptual complexity and domain compl
exity early | As an example, the
SarcoMotion program (Phillips et al., 1997) meets most of the
requirements of the Cognitive Flexibility Theory, as well as fulfilling
most of the criteria for a Laurillardian Guided-discovery Learning
Environment. Specifically, this project seeks to investigate
understanding of skeletal muscle contraction by first year tertiary
human biology students. The process of muscle contraction is
sub-microscopic, dynamic, three-dimensional and involves complex
interactions between the component parts. Observation of students over
several years, who studied this material in a traditional
lecture/tutorial setting, indicated that, while they could identify the
components, they had difficulty in visualising the underlying processes
at work. The program is based on an animation of the muscle
contraction process. Students observe and manipulate the animation to
identify components and examine how the components interact with each
other. At a second level, students inquire deeper into the material by
clicking on elements of the animation. Detailed information on each
component is accessed by questions typically asked of lecturers and
tutors, for example "Why do you need it?". This facilitates a non-linear
navigation through the information space.
Reeves
Reeves (Reeves,
1997) has recently proposed a model for interactive learning on the
World-wide Web based on the input, process and output of the learning
event. Essentially, Reeves is saying that students bring certain
attributes to their learning, go through a process of education and this
process has a set of outcomes, The parts of the process identified by
Reeves are shown in Table 1. | Input | Process |
Output |
|
| Cultural habits of mind | Opportunity to construct
learning | Knowledge and skills | | Aptitude and individual differences |
Task ownership | Robust mental models |
| Origin of motivation | Sense of
audience
Collaborative support
Teacher support
Metacognitive support | Higher order outcomes |
|
Table 1: Components of the Reeves 'Process' model
of
interactive learning on the World-wide Web. While
Reeves conceived of this model with respect to online learning, reflection
on the model indicates that it has a wider applicability to education in
general. While this model will surely mature with time, its strength is
that it addresses some of the more human aspects of learning, in
particular Cultural Habits of Mind and Origin of Motivation. It also
goes beyond the traditional Knowledge and Skills measure of outcomes of
the educational process, which is particularly important in a tertiary
education environment moving ever more into lifelong learning.
Conclusion
There is a tendency for newcomers to this field to
simply take the traditional Objectivist, or Instructivist, approach used
in the classroom and put it on the computer. This is a particularly easy
trap to fall into with the world-wide web, where it is so easy to simply
convert existing materials. However, computers just are not as good as
teachers at doing what teachers do best. They are also not as good as
books at doing what books do best. It is therefore necessary to critically
reflect on the most appropriate way to use educational technology.
The purpose of this paper was to concisely describe various alternative
models of teaching and learning suitable for use in online and
computer-based environments. The models share similarities, and have
restrictions of applicability. The sensible approach is to take the most
suitable aspects of each, and use them appropriately. It is hoped that
this information can be of use to practising academics seeking to use
information technology in their teaching.
References
Brown, J.
S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). Educational Researcher, 18,
32-42. Candy, P. C., Crebert, G. and O'Leary, J. (1994). In NBEET
Commissioned Report No. 28. Australian Government Publishing
Service. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J. and Coulson, R. L. (1989). In
Evans, D. and Patel, V. (Eds), The cognitive sciences in
medecine. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 113-172. Gillespie, L.
(1995). In Instructional Technology Forum Electronic Discussion
List LISTSERV@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU/Get ITFORUM log00010. Herrington, J.
and Oliver, R. (1995). In Pearce, J. M., and Ellis, A. (Eds),
Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education,
Melbourne, Australia, pp. 253-262. Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C.,
Mishra, P. and Kolar, C. (1996). J. of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 5, 239-281. Jonassen, D. H. and Reeves, T. C. (1996).
In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed), Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology, Vol. 1. Macmillan, New York, pp.
693-719. Laurillard, D. M. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching:
A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology.
Routledge, London. Laurillard, D. M. (1994). In Ryan, M. (Ed), Asia
Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education Conference,
Vol. 1. APITITE 94 Council, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 19-24. Maor,
D. and Phillips, R. A. (1996). In McBeath, C. and. Atkinson, R. (Eds),
Third International Interactive Multimedia Symposium, Vol. 1. Perth,
Western Australia, pp. 242-248. Marra, R. and Jonassen, D. (1993).
In Ely, D. and Minor, B. (Eds), Educational Media and Technology
Yearbook. Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Published in cooperation with
ERIC and AECT., Englewood CO, pp. 56-77. Phillips, R. (1997). The
Developer's Handbook to Interactive Multimedia - A Practical Guide for
Educational Applications. Kogan Page, London. Phillips, R. A.,
Jenkins, N., Fyfe, G. M. and Fyfe, S. (1997). In Ed-Media 97
Conference. Calgary Canada. Phillips, R. A. and Maor, D. (1996).
In Christie, A. (Ed), Australian Society for Computers in Learning in
Tertiary Education Conference, Vol. 1. Adelaide, Australia.
Reeves, T. C. (1992). In Information Technology for Training and
Education Conference, (ITTE'92). The University of Queensland,
Brisbane. Reeves, T. C. (1997). Personal Communication. Spiro, R.
J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J. and Anderson, D. K. (1988). In
Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale NJ, pp. 375-383. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J.
G., Samarapungavan, A. and Boerger, A. E. (1987). In Britton, B. K. and
Glynn, S. M. (Eds), Executive control processes in reading.
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 177-199.
|
