Written by U Shah and R Snider
The Atom as a Theoretical Framework for Online Learning - The Black Eyed Peas from urvi on Vimeo.
Introduction
The Atom as a Theoretical Framework for Online Learning - The Black Eyed Peas from urvi on Vimeo.
Introduction
The viable online learning environment of rapid and constant change must be live, authentic, nurturing and flexible. In this molecular framework the learner, facilitator and curriculum interact in a multiplicity of relationships to enable the learner to construct personal learning, to realize their learning goals and to establish and refine skills to help the individual and the collective solve the issues of the 21st century.
Four Theories
Social constructivism
Social constructivism emphasizes that learners “create meaning through their interactions with each other and with the environment they live in” (Kim, 2001, p.3). Knowledge and meaning are constructed as a product of social and cultural experiences. Thus, “meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities” (Kim, 2001, p.3). Vygotsky (1978) posits that learning is negotiated and constructed through the social interactions affecting thought and language.
Constructionism
Constructionism is a learning theory that posits that learning occurs as “building knowledge structures through progressive internationalize of actions” and the “learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity” (Papert & Harel 1991, p.1). The learner internalizes information (cognition) and demonstrates learning through external construction (constructing outside of their mind). Ideas are formed and transformed through construction which demonstrates learning.
Heutagogy
According to Hase, (2000) heutagogy is the concept of truly self-determined learning. It encourages the development of the individual’s capabilities, within an environment of knowledge sharing, intuition and reflection. This approach emphasizes the human connection, self worth, capability, a system environment-interface, learning as opposed to teaching (Hase, 2000).
Connectivism
Connectivism is a process of learning in which the environment can shift and change and is not necessarily within the control of the individual. It focuses on connecting information, determining important and unimportant information, and recognizing new information which changes decisions (Siemens, 2004). Connectivism proposes that knowledge rests in networks, resides in nonhuman applications, and learning is enabled by the currency of the technologies (Siemens, 2006, as cited in McLoughlin, 2008).
Online Learning Environment
The online learning environment is defined by Ally (2004) as:
the use of the internet to access learning materials; to interact with the content, instructor, and other learners; and to obtain support during the learning process, in order to acquire knowledge, to construct personal meaning, and to grow from the learning experience. p.17
Online learning models combine knowledge networks and communities of practice in both asynchronously and synchronously to meet the needs, learning outcomes and goals of the learner (Dabbagh, 2007). A personal learning environment is defined as “a single user’s e-learning system that provides access to a variety of learning resources” (van Harmelen, 2006, p.1). PLEs are “the sum of websites and technologies that an individual makes use of to learn. PLEs may range in complexity from a single blog to an inter‐connected web of social bookmarking tools, personal publishing platforms, search engines, social networks, aggregators, etc” (McElvaney & Berge, 2009, p.7). PLEs connect to personal learning networks (PLN) and personal web technologies (PWT). A personal learning network (PLN) is defined as an assemblage of components which influence construction of knowledge, collaboration and learning. Learners can build their online PLNs by networking with peers, friends, colleagues and professors etc. using Web 2.0 technologies. Online learning environments consist of PWTs and PLNs within PLEs which allow users to connect and expand their knowledge through external resources through human and non-human resources.
The Electrons
Learner
The learner is defined as the online learner, a diverse learner, geographically located anywhere in the world Successful online learners in a trusting environment must possess an internal locus of control, be intrinsically motivated, have a positive attitude towards their facilitators, peers and environment, be responsive to rapid technological innovations, new learning paradigms, value interaction, communication, collaboration and shared work with individuals and the environment and be self directed, self disciplined, self monitoring, self initiating and self managing (Dabbagh, 2007).
Facilitator
The traditional role of the teacher must be re-worked from being the sage on the stage to the guide on the side or meddler in the middle (McWilliam, 2005). The leader in a trusting environment must meddle, facilitate, and provide the milieu through which learning activity leads to creation of knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs. The leader must demonstrate “understanding, nonpossessive [sic] warmth, genuineness, respect, regard and acceptance” (Myrick & Wittmer, 1989, p.28).
Curriculum
Curriculum is defined as transactional and transformative learner-centered activities and interactions that occur within learning spaces. Transactional method is “…the emphasis is on curriculum strategies that facilitate problem-solving (cognitive process); application of problem-solving skills within social contexts in general, and within the context of the democratic process (democratic citizenship); development of cognitive skills within the academic disciplines“ (Heywood, 2010, Miller & Seller, 1990). The transformative method “involves greater interaction between teacher and learner, social goals are the focus…emphasizes personal and social change” (Heywood 2010, Miller & Seller, 1990). The online learning curricula must maintain flexibility and should be emergent in order to develop meaningful understandings and knowledge (Heywood, 2010).
Molecular Relationships
To assess online learning through this theoretical framework, we identify indicators to determine the success of an online learning program. These indicators lie within the (molecular) relationships between variables – the electrons – learner, facilitator and curriculum and are based in this frameworks four theories. Table 1.1 describes relationships between variables (electrons). Tables 1.2-1.6 contain indicator questions that can be used to assess an online learning program.
Table of relationships
Table 1.1 Relationships between Variables (Electrons)
Learner | Facilitator | Curriculum | |
Learner | - Locus of control - Sharing trust, values, visions and goals - Relationships developed through communication, dialogue and collaboration - Engagement in self and group reflection and assessment | - Sharing trust, values, visions and goals - Relationships develops through communication and dialogue - Encouragement and support - Engagement in self and group reflection and assessment | - Access, interaction with, and exploration of curriculum activities and content through a variety of online/offline sources - Experimentation, knowledge sharing, collaboration, and dialogue with regards to the content of the curriculum |
Facilitator | - Locus of control - Sharing trust, values, visions and goals - Relationships develops through communication, dialogue and collaboration - Engagement in self and group reflection and professional development - Encouragement and support - Creation, development and modeling of communities of practice | - Curriculum design - Units of study and learning activities - Monitoring, constructing and updating course content resources and activities | |
Curriculum | - Offline - Online: Web 1.0-4.0 |
Human Relationships
For online learners and facilitators to benefit from their PLN and from collaborative online learning, they must first form a human connection with other learners. This involves being able to communicate effectively with peers to develop shared trust, values, visions and goals. This human connection develops through communication, dialogue and the willingness to extend oneself to their peers. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to design the learning environment to encourage this connection and to model its ability to enhance the learning opportunities of collaborative and communication for active and constructive learning (Dabbagh, 2007).
Triad Relationships
The triad relationship between the learner, the curriculum and the facilitator determines the effectiveness of online learning. We describe these relationships within learning, knowledge and community centered approaches.
Learning/ Knowledge/community centered approach
Learning process
The basic foundation of the learning centered approach is that learner relationships are the starting point from which successful online learning takes place.
McCombs & Whisler (1997) define the learner-centered approach as:
…the perspective that couples a focus on individual learners their heredity, experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests, capacities, and needs with a focus on learning the best available knowledge about learning and how it occurs and about teaching practices that are most effective in promoting the highest levels of motivation, learning, and achievement for all learners. (McCombs & Whisler, 1997, p. 9 as cited in McCombs & Vakili, 2005, p.3)
Learning is enhanced through supportive relationships and a “sense of ownership and control over the learning process” (McCombs & Vakili, 2005, p.5). If the curriculum is designed well, online learning can support nonlinear learning, connect learners and provide a platform for collaborative activity (McCombs & Vakili, 2005). During lessons, the facilitators should provide structure and organizers for online learning to bridge the gaps between what a learner already knows and what they need to know. In order to meet the various needs and learning styles of the learners, facilitators should provide a variety of activities to engage all learners. The facilitator should provide opportunities for reflection and critical thinking for learners to apply their online learning to real-life (Ally, 2004).
Interpersonal and intrapersonal
To enhance the learning centered approach, there must be insightful inter- and intrapersonal dialogue. Gorsky & Caspi (2005) explain effective online education in terms of interpersonal and intrapersonal dialogue between all individuals involved in the learning process. Learners are engaged in intrapersonal dialogue occurs when learners “read self-instruction texts, listen to lectures or audio tapes, view educational films, solve problems and manipulate computer simulations” (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005, p.139). Intrapersonal dialogue occurs whenever the learner is “thinking” or having an “internal didactic conversation” (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005, p.139). Interpersonal dialogue facilitates learning. Members in a learners community of practice (CoP) can support, challenge and work collaboratively to construct new knowledge (Anderson, 2004). Interpersonal dialogue occurs as a discursive relationship between individuals when given “thought-provoking activities such as hypothesizing, questions, interpreting, explaining, evaluating and rethinking issues or problems at hand” (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005, p.140). Dialogue is essential for effective online learning.
Activities encouraging collaboration and interaction
The curriculum for online learning must be designed to incorporate a high degree of collaboration and interaction between all members and within activities. Project and problem based learning and activities allow for learners to work individually and within groups. They encourage students to join and be active within their PLE and PLN. The facilitators help students construct their own learning by guiding learners through the process. Learners act as teachers when student centered learning is encouraged and implemented in the design of the curriculum and in the dialogue of the facilitator (Varol, n.d., Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). To facilitate collaboration and interaction during these activities, the curriculum must be embedded with multimedia online tools such as blogs, wikis, audio chat, web conferencing, file sharing, learning objects etc (McGreal & Elliott, 2004).
Tables of Relationship Indicators
Based on the four theories and relationships within this framework, we have developed 5 tables of indicator questions that can help determine the success of online learning programs.
Table 1.2 Learner/Learner Relationship Indicators | Social Constructivism | Constructionism | Heutagogy | Connectivism | |
1 | Are learners self directed? | ||||
2 | Do learners have an internal locus of control? | ||||
3 | Are learners engaged in intrapersonal dialogue building on self and group assessment and reflection? | ||||
4 | Are learners communicating with other learners? | ||||
5 | Have learner developed shared values, visions, trust and goals amongst one another? | ||||
6 | Are learners engaging in dialogue based on curriculum content? | ||||
7 | Are learners using online tools for communication, collaboration and sharing? | ||||
8 | Through interpersonal dialogue and communication, are learners constructing their learning collaboratively? | ||||
Table 1.3 Learner/Facilitator Relationship Indicators | Social Constructivism | Constructionism | Heutagogy | Connectivism | |
1 | Are learners and facilitators self directed? | ||||
2 | Are learners and facilitators engaged in intrapersonal dialogue? | ||||
3 | Are learners and facilitators communicating dependent on the needs of the learner and facilitator? | ||||
4 | Have learner and facilitator developed shared values, visions, trust and goals amongst one another? | ||||
5 | Are learners and facilitators engaging in dialogue based on curriculum content? | ||||
6 | Are learners and facilitators using online tools for communication, collaboration and sharing? | ||||
7 | Through interpersonal dialogue and communication between learners and facilitators, are learners and facilitators constructing their learning? | ||||
8 | Are facilitators acting as guides on the side, meddlers in the middle? | ||||
Table 1.4 Facilitator/Facilitator Relationship Indicators | Social Constructivism | Constructionism | Heutagogy | Connectivism | |
1 | Are facilitators self directed? | ||||
2 | Are facilitators engaged in intrapersonal dialogue? | ||||
3 | Are facilitators actively engaged in communities of practice? | ||||
4 | Are facilitators communicating dependent on the needs of the facilitators, learners and curriculum? | ||||
5 | Have facilitator developed shared values, visions, trust and goals amongst one another? | ||||
6 | Are facilitators using offline/online tools for communication, collaboration and sharing, resulting in collegial support and processional development? | ||||
7 | Through interpersonal dialogue and communication between learners and facilitators, are learners and facilitators constructing their learning? | ||||
Table 1.5 Curriculum/Facilitator Relationship Indicators | Social Constructivism | Constructionism | Heutagogy | Connectivism | |
1 | Does the curriculum (initially designed by the facilitator) take into account learner needs and prior experience/background? | ||||
2 | Does the curriculum (initially designed by the facilitator) incorporate a high degree of collaboration and interaction between all members with a variety of authentic activities (e.g. project and problem based learning) and online tools (e.g. blogs, wikis, audio chat, web conferencing, filing sharing, learning objects)? | ||||
3 | Does the curriculum (initially designed by the facilitator) allow for authentic, self directed learning? | ||||
4 | Is the curriculum (initially designed by the facilitator) balanced between structured units of study and authentic, self-directed learning? | ||||
5 | Is the curriculum designed based on a learning-centered model? a) Through curriculum design and facilitator encouragement, do learners gain sense of ownership and control over the learning process? | ||||
6 | Does the facilitator “continuously monitor, construct and update course content, resources and activities”? | ||||
7 | Are curriculum content and activities designed in a manner that supports nonlinear learning, connects learners and provides a platform for authentic collaborative activity? | ||||
8 | Does the facilitator provide structure and organizers for online learning to bridge the gaps between what a learner already knows and what they need to know? | ||||
9 | Does the facilitator provide a variety of activities to engage all types of learners? | ||||
10 | Does the facilitator provide opportunities for reflection and critical thinking in order for learners to apply their online learning to authentic, real-life situations? | ||||
11 | Does the facilitator guide students to construct their own authentic learning by guiding learners through the process? | ||||
12 | Does the facilitator provide authentic opportunities within curriculum activities that allow learners to act as teachers, leaders or experts? | ||||
13 | Are opportunities for diagnostic, formative and summative assessment embedded into curriculum activities? | ||||
14 | Does the facilitator embed mechanisms to connect other learners and learning communities so that learners can self direct their learning based on curriculum content? (social constructivism | ||||
15 | Are activities and content designed to authentically address both community and individual personal needs? | ||||
Table 1.6 Curriculum/Learner Relationship Indicators | Social Constructivism | Constructionism | Heutagogy | Connectivism | |
1 | Are learners interacting with the curriculum through online and offline tools? | ||||
2 | Are learners engaged in exploration, experimentation, knowledge sharing, collaboration and dialogue and construction with regards to curriculum content through online tools? | ||||
3 | Are learners using, accessing and engaging with online tools to enhance and grow their knowledge? | ||||
4 | Are learners working and producing independently and collectively in curriculum activities to direct their learning? | ||||
5 | Are learners connecting curriculum content and activities to authentic, real-life situations? | ||||
6 | Are learners involved in co-creating activities and experiences with the facilitator? | ||||
7 | Is the learner interacting with the curriculum to help make it emergent (each learner or community of learners can at any period of time and based on their needs/purposes, create curricula that include authentic, dynamic and up-to date information)? | ||||
Conclusion
In the 21st Century, online learning must be a live, organic, trusting environment constantly nurturing, growing and changing to meet the demands of the learner, the facilitator and the curriculum. In our molecular framework the learner, facilitator and curriculum interact through their various relationships allowing all individuals to learn, grown and develop transferable skills, knowledge and processes that can be extrapolated and applicable to other situations. This framework bases itself in learning theories relevant to the digital age which encourage the processes of self directed learning, construction knowledge with others and engagement in thought provoking and reflective activities in a constantly changing human and non-human environment. The learner and facilitator understand and act on the value and power of dialogue, interaction, collaboration and problem solving which can result in powerful and authentic networked knowledge construction.
References
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 15-44). Alberta: Marquis Book Printing.
Dabbagh, N (2007). The Online Learner: Characteristics and Pedagogical Implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217-226.
Dirchinck-Holmfeld, L., Sorensen, E.K., Ryberg, T., Buus, L. (2004). A Theoretical Framework for Designing Online Master Communities of Practice. The networked learning conference, Lancaster, 2004, 1-7.
Gorsky, P. & Caspi, A. (2005). Dialogue: a theoretical framework for distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 137-144.
Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000). From Androgogy to Heutagogy. ultiBASE publication, December, 2000.
Heywood, D. (2010). Class Notes What is Curriculum. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.uoit.ca/connect/
Huang, H-M. Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33,(1), 27-37.
Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March, 28, 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
McCombs, B.L. & Vakili, D. (2005). A Learner-Centered Framework for E-Learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582-1600.
McElvaney, J., & Berge, Z. (2009). Weaving a Personal Web: Using online technologies to create customized, connected, and dynamic learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 35 (2), 1-12.
McGreal, R. & Elliot, M. (2004). Technologies of Online Learning (e-learning). In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 143-165). Alberta: Marquis Book Printing.
McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 1-
11. www.jld.qut.edu.au/Vol 1 No
Miller & Seller, (1990) The Curriculum Process. Curriculum: perspectives and practice. Toronto. Copp Clark Pitman.
Myrick, R.D., & Wittmer, J. (1989). The teacher as facilitator. Minneapolis, MN, Educational Media Corporation.
Papert, S. & Harel I. (1991). Constructionism. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Parker, N .K. The Quality Dilemma in Online Education / 385
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology, 1-9.
Varol, N. (n.d.). Knowledge Management on Student Centered Learning Methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment