The E-Learning Curve Blog has moved!

You will be automatically redirected to the new address in 10 seconds. If that does not occur for some reason, visit
http://michaelhanley.ie/elearningcurve/
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label behaviorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label behaviorism. Show all posts

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Aligning Learning Theory with Instructional Design

As you will know if you read yesterday's post, the proliferation of learning theories over the last century or so has led to a broad range of philosophies and ideas for learning professionals to choose from when undertaking the development of a learning program, as you can see from Figure 1, which is a simplified timeline of the philosophies and disciplines that influenced learning theories.

influences_on_learning_theories

Figure 1 Influences on Learning Theories (after Stahl, G. 2003)

The heterogeneous nature of learning theories, with sometimes subtle and occasionally significant divergences in their character usually serves only to confuse an already complex domain: even gathering an understanding of the key terms associated with the subject (see Figure 2) can be an overwhelming task for those new to the discipline of instructional design.

learning_theory_tag_cloud

Figure 2 Tag Cloud of Learning Theory Terms

So how do you choose a learning theory for your instructional design?

In their 1993 article Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features, Ertmer and Newby use Dale H. Schunk's definitive questions as well as two more of their own to enable those engaged in instructional design to distinguish between learning theories at the highest level. Schunk (1991) defines five questions to distinguish learning theories:

  1. How does learning occur?
  2. Which factors influence learning?
  3. What is the role of memory?
  4. How does transfer occur?
  5. What types of learning are best explained by the theory?

Ertmer and Newby include two more questions for instructional designers:

  1. What basic assumptions / principles are relevant to instructional design?
  2. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

Based upon these criteria, we can say that instructional design can be characterized as being effective in the contexts described as below:

Learning Program

Learning Theory / Instructional Design Approach

Introductory learning A behaviorist/cognitivist approach works best.
Instruction is predetermined, sequential and criterion-referenced
Advanced learning A cognitivist/constructivist approach works best.
Tasks require an increased level of processing (schematic organization, analogical reasoning etc)
Expertise development A constructivist approach works best.
Tasks associated with subject matter expertise demand high levels of analysis and problem-solving (i.e. situated learning, cognitive apprenticeships, and social negotiation)

__________

References:

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-70.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan.

Stahl, G. (2003). Building Collaborative Knowing: Elements Of A Social Theory Of CSCL, IN J.W. Strijbos, P.Kirschner & R. Martins (ed.), What we know about CSCL in higher education, Amsterdam: Kluwer.

--

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Discovering Instructional Design, Part 1

At its heart, learning is about growth. The single, central reason for learning, training, and education is to facilitate peoples' need to acquire and develop new skills, knowledge and expertise.

The E-Learning Curve Blog focuses on the development and deployment of learning technologies, and I've been known to discuss approaches to cognition and Constructivism at great length. For one reason or another, I haven't really discussed the bridge between the theoretical and the practical aspects of education - the twin pillars if you like - so over the next few weeks, I'm going to spend some time discussing this in an occasional series of articles on instructional design .

Instructional Design (ID) is the practice of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of instruction and other learning experiences. The ID process can be said to have a number of steps:

  1. determine the current state and needs of the learner
  2. define the end goal of instruction
  3. develop a learning intervention to assist in the acquisition of new skills, knowledge or expertise.

Before we dive in to ID with much gusto, I want to begin by briefly outlining the theoretical basis for pretty much all contemporary approaches to instructional design.

1. Behaviorism

Based on observed changes in behavior, Behaviorism focuses on a new behavioral patterns being repeated until they becomes automatic. The theory emerged from work done by Ivan Pavlov in associative learning and classical conditioning. The theory of behaviorism concentrates on the study of overt behaviors that can be observed and measured (Good & Brophy, 1990). It views the mind as a "black box" in the sense that the response to a stimulus can be observed quantitatively, while totally ignoring the possibility of thought processes occurring in the mind.

In his 1953 text Science and Human Behavior B. F. Skinner developed the concept of operant conditioning and its application in education and training through the use of positive and negative reinforcement techniques. A behaviorist approach to learning was first implemented in educational technology in the 1960’s.

Main characteristics:

  • Behavioral objectives (performance, condition, standard)
  • Programmed instruction
  • Individualized instruction
  • Computer assisted instruction
  • Systems approach

2. Cognitivism

Based on thought processes governing behavior, the theory of Cognitivism emerged from the inability of the Behaviorist Model to explain how children do not imitate all behavior. Similarly, the Behaviorist Model could not account for certain types of learning.

Bandura and Walters' 1963 text Social Learning and Personality Development led to Social Cognitive Theory, a concept further developed by Jean Piaget.

Main characteristics:

  • schema
  • 3-stage Information Processing Model (sensory register / short term memory / long term memory)

Cognitivism began influencing technology in education in the 1970’s. Its adoption led to a shift from measuring external behavior to focusing on the internal mental processes behind behavior, leading to a greater emphasis on task- and learner analysis. According to Cognitivists, tasks are broken down to move from simple to complex, based on previously-learned mental models, or schema. Cognitivism is currently the principal theory used in instructional design.

3. Constructivism

Based on individual perspectives addressing demand of the real world, The theory of Constructivism emerged from work undertaken by Bartlett (1932).

Merrill and Jonassen (1991) further developed the theory to postulate that our reality is perceived through a process of social negotiation.
First implemented in educational technology in 1980’s and 90’s. Led to a movement from objectively to subjectively focused learning, and the development of more open-ended tasks where results of learning are not so easily measured, and are not the same for each learner. Constructivism is not compatible with simple Systems Approach and outcomes of learning are NOT predetermined.

Main characteristics:

  • Use of realia (real-world objects)
  • Authentic tasks – task-based learning
  • Reflective practice – learning to learn
  • Use of hypertext and hypermedia – branched learning rather than a linear learning path

More...

___________

References:

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt

Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press

Good, T. L., Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th ed.).White Plains, NY: Longman

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14.

Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, May, 45-53.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.

--

Monday, February 23, 2009

M-Learning via the iPhone 4 – some approaches and technologies

Last time, I investigated mobile learning (m-learning) in the context of its parent domain e-learning and I outlined some types and characteristics of devices that enable the delivery of m-learning to users. In this post, I will look at the some of the learning theories that support learning distributed via mobile devices.

Now read on…

In their 2004 paper Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning (Naismith, Lonsdale, Sharples & Vavoula), consider the importance of taking an approach to m-learning that

moves away from the dominant view of mobile learning as an isolated activity to explore mobile learning as a rich, collaborative and conversational experience, whether in classrooms, homes or the streets of a city. …how we might draw on existing theories of learning to help us evaluate the most relevant applications of mobile technologies.

(p.1)

Table 1. Applying Learning Theories to M-Learning (after Naismith et al, 2004)

Learning Theory Activity Type Description
Behaviorist Activities that promote learning as a change in learners’ observable actions In the behaviorist paradigm, learning is thought to be best facilitated through the reinforcement of an association between a particular stimulus and a response.

Applying this to educational technology, computer-aided learning is the presentation of a problem (stimulus) followed by the contribution on the part of the learner of the solution (response). Feedback from the system then provides reinforcement.
Constructivist Activities in which learners actively construct new ideas or concepts based on both their previous and current knowledge In the constructivist approach, learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based on both their current and past knowledge. Learners are encouraged to be active constructors of knowledge, with mobile devices now embedding them in a realistic context at the same time as offering access to supporting tools.

The most compelling examples of the implementation of constructivist principles with mobile technologies come from a brand of learning experience termed ‘participatory simulations’, where the learners themselves act out key parts in an immersive recreation of a dynamic system.
Situated Activities that promote learning within an authentic context and culture Situated learning posits that learning can be enhanced by ensuring that it takes place in an authentic context. Mobile devices are especially well suited to context-aware applications simply because they are available in different contexts, and so can draw on those contexts to enhance the learning activity.

The museum and gallery sector has been on the forefront of context-aware mobile computing by providing additional information about exhibits and displays based on the visitor’s location within them.
Collaborative Activities that promote learning through social interaction Collaborative learning has sprung out from research on Computer-Supported Collaborative Work and Learning (CSCW/L) and is based on the role of social interactions in the process of learning.

Many new approaches to thinking about learning developed in the 1990s, most of which are rooted in Vygotsky’s socio-cultural psychology (Vygotsky 1978), including activity theory.

Though not traditionally linked with collaborative learning, another theory that is particularly relevant to our consideration of collaboration using mobile devices is conversation theory (Pask 1976), which describes learning in terms of conversations between different systems of knowledge.

Mobile devices can support Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (MCSCL) by providing another means of coordination without attempting to replace any human-human interactions, as compared to say, online discussion boards which substitute for face-to-face discussions (Zurita et al 2003; Cortez et al 2004; Zurita and Nussbaum 2004).
Informal and non-formal Activities that support learning outside a dedicated learning environment and formal curriculum Research on informal and lifelong
learning recognizes that learning happens all of the time and is influenced both by our environment and the particular situations we are faced with. Informal learning may be intentional, for example, through intensive, significant and deliberate learning ‘projects’ (Tough 1971), or it may be accidental, by acquiring information through conversations, TV and newspapers, observing the world or even experiencing an accident or embarrassing situation.

Such a broad view of learning takes it outside the classroom and, by default, embeds learning in everyday life, thus emphasizing the value of mobile technologies in supporting it.
Learning and teaching support Activities that assist in the coordination of learners and resources for learning activities Education as a process relies on a great deal of coordination of learners and resources. Mobile devices can be used by teachers for attendance reporting, reviewing student marks, general access of central school data, and managing their schedules more effectively. In higher education, mobile devices can provide course material to students, including due dates for assignments and information about timetable and room changes.

As yet there is no comprehensive ‘grand theory of mobile learning’ - nor do I expect that there will be any time soon. As I move forward through this series of posts, one of the areas I will consider is integrating pedagogy for the use of mobile devices that in a number of areas. In much the same way as we have many categories of devices, we will discover that there are many ways to integrate learning on mobile devices using a number of instructional designs, developmental approaches and delivery models. I support the view that one of the great strengths of m-learning (and indeed e-learning) is it's facility to transcend traditional learning environments like the classroom or training center, and to combine different elements in ways that are appropriate to the learning activities to be supported.

More…

______________________

References:

Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Santelices, R,. Rodríguez, P., Zurita, G., Correa, M. and Cautivo, R. (2004) Teaching science with mobile computer supported collaborative learning (MCSCL). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. JungLi, Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society, 67-74

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. and Sharples, M. (2004) Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning. NESTA Futurelab Series, Report 11. [Internet] Available from: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm Accessed 15 February 2009.

Pask, AGS (1976) Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Edited by Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, Souberman, E. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Zurita, G, Nussbaum, M and Sharples, M. (2003) Encouraging face-to-face collaborative learning through the use of hand-held computers in the classroom. Proceedings of Mobile HCI 2003, Udine, Italy: Springer-Verlag, 193-208

Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M (2004) Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected hand-held computers. Computers & Education, 42(3): 289-314

--