Tag: Pragmatism

Background and Foundations

Objectivism epistemology believes that facts, theories, and principles have already existed or will exist eventually (Bates, 2009).

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).

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.

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?)

Connectivism “is a theory for the digital age, where individuals learn and work in a networked environment” (Ally, 2008, p. 34).

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).

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)

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.