Week 2: Reflections on Theory...

This week’s readings gave me a lot to think about in terms of how effective online learning can be. In the end, though, I tended to agree with those that saw technology as a medium, but that a sound design model and theoretical basis were what made any educational experience a success. While technology’s come a long way, it is still developing. But, that doesn’t mean that we should not explore its capabilities and application in different learning contexts.

So, with that said, let me comment on a few of the suggested topics for this week’s blog post:

In Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning, Mohamed Ally argues that no one school of thought on learning is used exclusively in online design, and that an online developer must know the different approaches to learning in order to select the appropriate instructional strategies (p. 6). What do you think of this claim?

This goes back to my introductory statement. Good instructional design is good instructional design. If designers are aware of their learners’ strengths and limitations, have a sense of the technological capabilities, and base their lessons on sound practices, there is a high probability of success.

Now, I don’t profess to be an expert on the different learning approaches and schools of thought. I do think that those of us that have had some experience or training in education have an idea of how students learn and how to best reach them with instruction. So, while I think it’s important to understand the different approaches, I think that this knowledge can be held either “tacitly or explicitly”, as Ally suggests (p. 6). In the end, it’s important to understand these approaches, but not be tied down by them. I’d say that they’re good guidelines for developing online and classroom instruction, but should be flexible enough to integrate emerging technologies.

Mohamed Ally talks about the implications of different learning theories--behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist--on online learning. How and where are the implications of these theories different for online learning than they are for face-to-face instruction? Does technology make a difference? If so, how?

I would say that there is no difference between face-to-face and online instruction, when it comes to the use of learning theories. Theories help us to understand and influence different situations, and should be applicable across a variety of settings and situations. In the cases of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, the main object of the theory is the learner. This is an important point, because Ally’s descriptions of each theory made little or no mention to the delivery method. His sections entitled “Implications for Online Learning” really just provided tips, or best practices, for following the tenets of each theory, in an online environment.

This, of course, does point to the fact that online and face-to-face instruction are different, and that there will be differing approaches to learning. This doesn’t mean that the theoretical approaches to learning will be different.

Anderson cites studies that claim that effective instruction is learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered. Given these dimensions, what impact does technology mediation have on instruction?

I think that technology mediation has the opportunity to help create and support all of these components. But, again, we have to go back to the idea that a good design can equal effective instruction, regardless of the delivery method.

In some ways, this becomes more difficult, because students and instructors may have a harder time gaining an understanding of each other and the social/educational complexities of the class. There is also the issue of technological competencies and access that might be an issue for some students. These factors can affect the learner and community centered aspects of online instruction.

On the other hand, delivery of instruction using technology has the opportunity to enhance assessment by building it directly into the interface, and providing immediate feedback and support. This is also true from the knowledge centered aspect, in that it can pull together a variety of resources that might otherwise be rare commodities to face-to-face learners.

Ultimately, though, I think that Anderson’s model seems sound for online instruction. Sure, there are accommodations that need to be made for learners, but the same might be said for students in a face-to-face course.

Is there any validity to the arguments of David Noble, Hubert Dreyfus, and Mark Bauerline or are they just curmedgeony luddites?

Haha! Curmudgeony luddites… Well, I will say that I was a bit put off by these readings. While I appreciate that there are programs out there that use online education as a money-maker, it seemed as if the arguments were based on personal experiences and not a broader presentation of the facts. Even Rothfork, who seemed to be supportive of Dreyfus’ book, points out that “Dreyfus relies too much on his own experience to imply that elite universities offer true education, while thousands of lesser schools throughout America offer mere training and competency…” (p.3).

So, while I think it is important to keep in mind that there are less than great online programs out there, it is not necessarily true across the board. As for being curmudgeony luddites? Well… not necessarily. But, they certainly have a beef with online education. As somebody pointed out (I’ve forgotten who), “distance learning isn’t for everyone.”