Background and Foundations
Objectivism epistemology believes that facts, theories, and principles have already existed or will exist eventually (Bates, 2009).
Objectivist approaches to teaching, according to Bates (2009):
Knowledge is something that is pre-conditioned.
“A course must present a body of knowledge to be learned” (para. 2).
The content ought to be delivered effectively by instructors.
Instructors are granted big authority to create and compile well-structured content.
Students are expected to acquire and comprehend the knowledge as it is.
Students are expected to “find right answers and justify them” (para. 3).
Behaviorism theory argues that “learning is a change in observable behavior caused by external stimuli in the environment” (Ally, 2008, p. 19). The theory focuses on a quantitative measure of the learner’s learning process. Behaviorism stems from objectivism (Bates, 2009).
Behaviorists’ approaches to teaching, according to Bates (2009):
Reinforce the reward (carrot) and punishment (stick) style.
Provide feedback for correction purposes.
Multiple-choice testing style.
Measurable learning objectives.
Computer-assisted instruction.
Behaviorism implications to online learning as conveyed by Ally (2008):
A clear expectation of the overall learning process, content, and the outcome is stated early on.
The content must be well-structured and in sequence.
Students’ academic standing is measured by testing.
Feedback must be provided for monitoring and correction purposes.
Cognitivism “See learning as an internal process that involves memory, thinking, reflection, abstraction, motivation, and metacognition” (Ally, 2008, p. 21). For cognitivism, learners and their memory, consciousness, and emotion are active agents in a learning process.
Bloom’s taxonomies of learning objectives, which were later on modified by Anderson and Krathwol, are the most widely used taxonomies by cognitivism, as follows:
- Cognitive
- Affective (feeling)
- Psychomotor (doing)
- Creating (Bates, 2009, para. 4)
Cognitivism online learning approaches, according to Ally (2008):
Incorporate students’ different learning styles.
Due to a limited duration of memory; therefore, information is best to be transmitted in increments.
Encourage real-life cases in the assignments.
Present a material that is well-designed and aesthetically pleasing to create interests for the memory to acquire, process, and link the information with the existing one in order to make a connection.
Encourage learners to use their metacognitive skills (p. 29).
Constructivism asserts that the “learner is the center of learning, with the instructor playing an advising and facilitating role (Ally, 2008, p. 30). (Charles Wedemeyer, Michael Moore, and Borje Holmberg share the cognitivism/constructivism ideal when it comes to the focus on distance learning, a learner is the center of learning. Is it?)
Constructivism shares similarities with cognitivism when it comes to the learner as the center of the learning process. However, constructivism signifies the importance of human “consciousness, free will, and social influences” (Bates, 2009, para. 1).
(This is more like Charles Wedemeyer because he emphasizes the learner who makes a decision about what to learn, what the objectives are, and how he will learn such objectives.)
For constructivists, knowledge is not just acquired; instead, knowledge is constructed “by assimilating information, relating it to our existing knowledge, and cognitively processing it” (Bates, 2009, para. 3).
“Learning is a constantly dynamic process” (Bates, 2009, para. 7).
Constructivism centers on the learners as its active agents because each learner is unique and has social interactions. (Borje Holmberg’s learner’s center of learning focuses on the personal connection between learner and instructor – “guided didactic conversation”. Is it?)
Constructivism implications to online learning, according to Ally (2008):
Learners have the control, with some guidance, to construct knowledge during the learning process.
Collaborative learning, such as group work, facilitates social interactions.
Interactive learning amongst learner, interface, content, support – instructor and expert, and context.
Connectivism “is a theory for the digital age, where individuals learn and work in a networked environment” (Ally, 2008, p. 34).
In the digital age, the available information is massive and interconnected, and it flows across networks.
Siemens (2004):
Knowledge is outside the control of humans, and it is constantly changing.
Subsequently, Siemens (2005):
Learning is an external process (forward-looking and part of the bigger picture kind of situation?) instead of an individualistic activity (cognitivism? And/or constructivism?).
Learning is a process of connecting the dots (and making a cognitive conclusion?).
Staying up to date helps to maintain learning aptitude (it helps when we need to reconnect with the existing information stored in our memory).
Learning and unlearning are part of the learning process (I agree).
The validity of information is depending on changes in society.
Pragmatism and System of Thinking. American Pragmatism is “a school of thought that focuses on action and on the idea of practice and the practical” (Saba, 2003, p. 9).
What distinguishes distance education from other forms of education (traditional?) is the feature where learners are the focus of the learning process (shared by Borje Holmberg, Charles A. Wedemeyer, and Michael G. Moore).
Holmberg’s “guided didactic conversation” refers to the importance of personal relationships between learner and teacher (Saba, 2003, p. 4).
Wedemeyer’s learner’s independence on learning management -time, space, and pace.
Moore’s “transactional distance” refers to a relationship between learner and teacher (as Wedemeyer’s) in the learning process (Saba, 2003, p. 5). (In a social science framework)
How distance education is organized is another distinguishing feature of distance education (structural issues? shared by Desmond Keegan, Otto Peters, Randy Garrison, and John Anderson).
Industrialization in education by Peters (1994) demonstrates the importance of technology contributing to distance education. A distinguishing feature of industrialization is the division of labor. Thus, industrialization in education refers to the division of labor in distance education (Saba, 2003).
“… there were no statistically significant differences between classroom instruction and educational television…” (Saba, 2003, p. 6).
(How about in today’s time? Is there any comparative study comparing classroom instruction and video recording instruction or live training webinar?)
Salomon’s “distributed cognition” (1997) refers to “the role of the individual versus the role of the group” in computer-mediated communication (Saba, 2003, p. 7).
Social events (big ones) can influence the expansion of distance education in the U.S., such as:
- Industrialization (extensive use of technology and division of labor) and post-Industrialization (is it not also involving extensive use of technology, what differentiates between the two?)
- Post-Cold War
- Internet
- Economic development
As Peter stated (1967) of his evolved definition of distance education (from Industrialization time to post-Industrialization) is “a complex, hierarchical, nonlinear dynamic, self-organized, and purposeful system of learning and teaching” (Saba, 2003, p. 12).
Due to the various epistemology and changes that take place in society, American Pragmatism offers the wisdom of a “reconciler and mediator” (Saba, 2003, p. 10).
(Is it because pragmatism is about practicality? And therefore, it is adaptable when the intersection of changes is taking place?)
The Community of Inquiry (CoI) Frameworks has three elements (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Archer, 2010):
- Cognitive presence – the extent to which learners can construct meaning through interaction
- Social presence – learners’ ability to demonstrate their personality in the CoI
- Teaching presence – learning process encourages cognitive and social presence to form a meaningful learning experience (video, discussion board, access to new material)
All these elements are interrelated with each other to provide the best learning experience possible.
Charles Wedemeyer – cognitive presence
Michael Moore – teaching presence (transactional distance)
Borje Holmberg – social presence (the personal connection between learner and instructor, guided didactic conversation)
So, each of their focuses demonstrates the Community of Inquiry elements.
How to measure presence according to Nolan:
- Social presence – online post – new post and reply
- Teaching presence – tutoring – post and reply
- Cognitive presence – engaging the learning video.
Teaching presence demonstrates students’ overall positive learning experience.
Four key changes in learning design methodology: (Nolan, 2019, pp. 5-6)
- The online module lasts for three weeks instead of weekly (Prof. Steve uses this method).
- Reward systems in discussion sessions – compulsory or optional to post (participating in discussion increase interaction and information sharing, to the very least).
- Increase tutor involvement.
- Shorter video duration and spread out throughout the module, integrated with other material. Open-ended questions encourage the thinking process, note-taking, and reflection (Prof. Steve uses this method).
Online education videos should be no longer than six minutes with three minutes break (Nolan, 2019, p. 5).
Social presence is the bridge that connects cognitive and teaching presence. Communication is required for collaboration and interpersonal skills development (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, 2010, p. 7).
REFLECTION
Thinking about objectivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism theories, I would argue that each of these theories is interconnected to each other in a path of providing a comprehensive model of distance education.
I would argue that no theory is perfect, it is not a situation that is one size fits all. There are many variables, internal and external, to take into consideration when designing what structure would work for certain circumstances.
Internal variables, I would argue, comprise maturity, personality, pre-existing cognitive skills, attitude toward learning, and more. External variables, I would argue, comprise socio-economic, upbringing, geographic location, and culture.
My preferred method of delivery in distance education is hybrid (with synchronous and asynchronous formats). I still think that social interaction is needed because humans are, by nature, social beings. Although not all humans are social butterflies, the need to be social would still be there. An introvert would still be social; she/he just does not need socialization as much as an extrovert.
Although hybrid is my preferred method, I would argue that it should not be made compulsory. What I would do, instead, is to come to a consensus with each student to come to an agreement to meet on the core day(s). The core day(s) is to be decided collectively.
As mentioned in the readings, behaviorism seems to be a good theory to be applied in a learning process that is more factual and standardized. The carrot and stick model fits in behaviorism theory. The same goes with other epistemology, each one of them is a good model for certain learning processes and objectives, depending on its population.
The way I see epistemology in distance education is like I see how we parent our children. We do not exactly use only one theory for the rest of our lives as parents. We adjust and adapt our parenting epistemology depending on the children, the situation, the challenges, and the means and the objectives we have for the children. Parenting children is not a static act; it continuously evolves.
I would argue that Charles Wedemeyer, Michael Moore, and Borje Holmberg, share, to a certain extent, the cognitivism/constructivism ideal when it comes to the focus on distance learning, the learner is the center of learning. The difference is, I would argue, the implementation of this learner’s center focus. Wedemeyer, focuses strongly on independent learning where the student is the one who makes the decision about what lesson he/she wants to learn and how to learn it. Arguably, by giving autonomy to the learner, the outcome would be more ideal, meaning that the student would be more responsible for his/her own objectives. Setting one’s objectives, she/he would make a better strategy. When I see Wedemeyer’s learner’s center focus, I think of the cognitive presence element of the Community of Inquiry Framework.
On the other hand, Michael Moore’s learner’s center focuses on the transaction between the learner and instructor during the learning process. When a learner and an instructor interact more, the learning increases. It goes the opposite when a learner interacts less with the instructor, the learning decreases. I feel like Moore’s paradigm demonstrates the teaching presence element of the Community of Inquiry Frameworks.
In addition, Borje Holmberg’s learner’s center focuses on the personal relationship between learner and teacher, “guided didactic conversation.” A teacher, ideally, would guide and be the real mentor to the learner. With a good personal relationship, the quality of the teacher’s teaching the student, I would argue, is higher, which would result in a better learning experience. I would argue that Holmberg’s learner’s center displays the social presence element of the Community of Inquiry Frameworks.
After reading Saba’s paper, I got to think more about the epistemology of distance education. I would start with the behaviorism theory of learning, which I would argue, demonstrates a seemingly one-way learner-teacher relationship. Although the relationship is not fully one-way; however, a teacher seems to have more control over the students as well as the overall learning process.
Because behaviorism is about observing the expected behavior from learners, thus, teachers would set up expectations for students early in the process. Furthermore, it makes sense that the teachers would also be the ones that set the examples to learners on how to achieve those expectations. It is sort of a learn-by-example kind of relationship. Teachers set positive examples and encouragement, and students are expected to follow.
In addition, the reward/punishment method in behaviorism reminds me of the K-12 learning process. Teachers would give stars/rewards/points to students who do well and give corrections to students who need to do better. There are many applications that K-12 teachers use for this reward/punishment method, for example, ClassDojo. There are individualized reward points given to students who show the expected quality behavior. Throughout the school year, each student will collect Dojo points and will be able to earn rewards. In my son’s ES, the biggest reward that a student aims for is a 30-min free time where the student can do anything, including playing games with their computer. For K-12 students, this 30-min free time is an awesome reward to have; and committed students, like my son, aim for it 😊. ClassDojo rewards app is also utilized by the whole school, which means each class competes to win the classroom reward.
Behaviorism theory also fits the teaching style in the military and for people with learning disabilities. I would also argue that behaviorism is applicable to teaching older generations. In my culture, the older generation tends to have an either-or and/or yes/no mindset. So, I wonder if behaviorism is applicable to teaching older generations, in general (I am not trying to brush all older generations with the same brush, of course).
Cognitivism theory seems to be ideal to be implemented in learners from a very early age to prepare and develop the learner’s brain and cognitive skills to acquire and process information available to and for them. Arguably, for this to work, the instructor’s ability to create and develop such a learning environment is vital.
Since cognitivism focuses on the learner, therefore, learner’s level of comprehension of the learning content is varied. Thus, an individualized approach, guidance, and assessment become significant to measure each learner’s standing in acquiring the information during the learning process.
Cognitivism’s goal for learners is to possess critical thinking skills, which is a higher level of cognitive skills for problem-solving.
When I think of constructivism, I think of the Montessori method of teaching. I wonder if the Montessori method is built upon or based on constructivism, after all, Maria Montessori was a researcher and professional who focuses on early childhood education.
I would argue that the Montessori method covers both cognitivism and constructivism; but it is lining towards constructivism more due to Montessori’s key components that emphasize collaborative work among peers, instructor as a guide, and learning-by-doing context (Montessori method, n.d.). Furthermore, because social interaction (peers review and collaborative work) is an important component in constructivism, this differentiates constructivism from cognitivism, where information is more “provided” by the instructor and that learning is an internal mental process, excluding the socialization process during the learning process.
Whereas cognitivism is acquiring, storing, and processing information – that is structured for the learners – into knowledge; constructivism is constructing the knowledge from the information available in a social interaction.
As for connectivism, I would argue that this theory is still in progress as we are still in the digital age. Computer, internet, and information technologies are still evolving with potentially newly updated and upgraded ones. With the advancement of technology and progress in many countries’ socio-economic, the availability and flow of information become extremely abundant. Internet’s availability is no longer reserved only developed countries; the internet is almost available in every corner of the world, even in a location that is much less populated and civilized. Accessing information is no longer dependent on our ability to have a desktop computer. In developing worlds, a computer is something still considered a luxury item. However, a smartphone, although it can be equally expensive, has become a necessary tool for communication. The smartphone becomes not only a tool of communication but also a tool for acquiring information that, to various levels of extent, many people turn into knowledge.
The presence of social media, for example, has revolutionized how information is available and presented. I feel like many things in today’s time run so extremely fast, I feel the need to disconnect, sometimes. Of course, what is “fast” in the U.S. can differ from what is “fast” in my home country, Indonesia. However, one thing that is “at the same time” is, I would argue, the availability of the information itself. People all over the world can access the same exact information simultaneously despite their geographic regions. This is extremely fascinating, concurrently a bit concerning (not in a bad way necessarily). Information can last a few days, months, years, or days if not minutes! The value and validity of information are, in many ways or for popular information at least, depending on a collective consensus of the recipients or people who acquire it.
For example, now, breaking news seems to be happening all the time. Back then, I remember, breaking news is something that does not take place every day; it was meant for a special events. But today, every news channels always have breaking news. After that, that breaking news do not seem to last very long because they are replaced by other breaking news. It demonstrates connectivism’s learning and un-learning component, I would argue.
In connection with the Community of Inquiry Framework, I would argue that the social presence is definitely there. The network in connectivism is probably the teaching presence (connectivism argues that the information is, out there, in the network). As for the cognitive presence, I would argue, in connectivism would be the learner’s ability to acquire this diverse information, make collective observation, and determination on the information they are worth keeping or not.
Although from what I have read connectivism is still an ongoing theory, I would say, yes, because human civilization is still ongoing. Would it be another theory like the previous ones? I would say, yes. Would it be perfect? I would say, of course not, just like other theories before it that are not perfect. I guess this is where pragmatism in the U.S. distance education comes in. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism still stay because they each have qualities that are applicable to learning and distance education. After all, pragmatism, in my own way, means being practical. It is like Darwin’s theory of survival. These theories of learning still survive to date because they have components that allow them to survive.
References
Ally, M. (2008). Foundation of educational theory of online learning. In The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15-44). Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120146_99Z_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 45-74). Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120146_99Z_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5-9. http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/its/BPO_2011/readings/Garrison-first%20decade.pdf
Montessori Generation. (n.d.). Montessori method.https://montessorigeneration.com/pages/montessori-method
Nolan-Grant, C. R. (2019). The community of inquiry framework as learning design model: A case study in postgraduate online education. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-15.
Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology, and epistemology: A pragmatic paradigm. In Handbook of distance education (pp. 3-19). Lawrence ERL Baum and Associates.
