Imitation or Innovation?

As this blog discussion has progressed, some of us may have been asking of ourselves: what exactly is the point of e-learning? It may seem at times that online learning merely, as Micah put it, ‘imitates a classroom’. To me, the word ‘imitation’ carries negative connotations. For example, the richness of real vanilla beans can never be substituted for by imitation vanilla essence. There is something egalitarian, perhaps, about imitation (it is much cheaper) but something very important is lost.

This sentiment is expressed by Leunig as a loss of soul that has occurred in new forms of online communication. Danny Katz provides his own satirical take on the loss of real human interaction through digital communication in his article titled, The Lost Art of Mouth Talking.

Now, popular culture's voracious apetitite for thrill and gimmick over skill and substance (think 20/20 v test cricket or Hollywood v Cannes) may suggest that our use of technology in the classroom acts as little more than a "powerplay" in our already exciting and engaging lessons. But my intuition tells me such a cynical view is not quite the case. 

All this gets me wondering: what is it that asynchronous e-learning has to offer us as learners and educators? what makes it more than mere imitation?

Hrastinski (2008) suggests the following occasions for when asynchronous e-learning should be utilised: 1) reflecting on complex issues; 2) when synchronous meetings cannot be scheduled because of other commitments. Essentially, Hrastinski sees that asynchronous e-learning offers us a flexibility which allows for greater 'cognitive participation'. Or, using the language of constructivism that has been running through our discussion, asynchronous e-learning increases our opportunity for cognitive constructvism. 

I think about my senior classes where a lot of discussion is had. In history, we talk about issues of justice, non-violence, change etc. in relation to slavery and civil rights in the United States. In ethics, we talk about euthanasia or bioethics and the many factors involved in developing an ethical stance. In many ways, it would be far better to have these discussions in an asynchronous environment such as a blog to allow a greater number of students time to reflect and then offer thoughtful, considered responses. The reality is that, in the classroom, there are fewer students who contribute to these important discussions. I am sure that both time to think and greater confidence when hidden behind a screen and keyboard would increase the number of students willing to participate.


It is for this reason that Lado believes that 'asynchronous learning gives e-learning much of its appeal'. He writes that, 'learners can engage each other when it is most convenient and a knowledge trail is left of discussions...[so] students that are trailing behind in course work still receive the benefit of being able to read discussion posts.' 

The problem with synchronous e-learning is that all it really does is imitate the actual classroom. Asynchronous e-learning, however, provides a new, richerand more just learning experience for students. Asynchronous technologies have provided for truly innovative approaches to education rather than mere gimmicks.

Constructing a Constructivist Context

Micah has written about the link between synchronous e-learning and constructivism. In my last post, I suggested that educators need to create structures which ensure that asynchronous learning adheres to social constructivism. In this post, I’d like to define more clearly social constructivism and discuss how it relates to the construction or design of e-learning.

Ernest suggests that social constructivism ‘posits that human agreement is the ultimate arbiter of what counts as justified knowledge.’ So then, social constructivism goes beyond mere cognitive constructivism in the sense that new knowledge is created and agreed upon by the community. So perhaps we can consider again Micah’s comment on the object sorting activity in his last post where he suggests that ‘students not only work with their peers, they also listen and learn from them’. Do the students agree upon the new knowledge? Implicitly, they probably do. But, to what extent does the facilitator need to ask questions that help students come to agreement on new, constructed knowledge? My guess is that agreement on new knowledge – with some level of sophistication – is more likely to happen naturally as students get older, though it cannot be a given.

Let me use blogging as an example. Students in my History class may each write their own blogs about particular historical issues (let’s say social life in Nazi Germany). Students may read each other’s blogs and find themselves thinking about new ideas. Indeed, they may even leave comments and influence each other’s thinking through debate. But have they agreed upon new knowledge?

My intuition tells me that: 1) students almost certainly construct their own new knowledge; 2) will often, implicitly, agree upon this new knowledge; 3) will rarely reflect that they have, together, constructed new knowledge without the guidance of an educator.

This guidance could manifest in a variety of ways. It may be through carefully structured questions, or it could be through careful development of learning activity guidelines and it should involve careful consideration of how the technology can be used to gain the desired results. Muniz-Solari and Coats (2009) put this another way, suggesting that a ‘system framework, an e-learning “ecosystem,” must be developed that specifies the learning system architecture for pedagogical development’ and that this “ecosystem” ‘must allow flexible, learner-centered education’.

Furthermore, Matt Rota writes that ‘highly effective asynchronous eLearning begins with understanding the roles that fall into the realm of the eLearning instructional design process’. Thus it would seem that the role of the educator is paramount to ensuring effective learning takes place in an asynchronous environment. Indeed, it would appear that constructivism does not have a ‘mind of its own’ but needs to be expertly manipulated.

Increasingly, it seems to me that a truly rich learning experience online will require a combination of synchronous and asynchronous activities. Certainly, I’m not convinced that asynchronous learning on its own provides enough opportunities to allow for shared, agreed upon, newly-constructed knowledge. Muniz-Solari and Coats (2009) affirm this when they write: ‘A need exists to incorporate real-time synchronous technologies for text, visual, and audio communication.’ Specifically, in relation to the “togetherness” of the learning experience, it may be argued that synchronous technologies work to enhance students’ sense of belonging to what may actually be deemed as a learning community (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). 

I wonder what the experiences of others have been in relation to e-learning and social constructivism. Have you found that synchronous technologies have contributed to a sense of community – learning from and with each other?

A Constructivist Classroom

In previous posts, I wrote about synchronous e-learning and its links with constructivism and postmodern educational theories. I believe that the theory of constructivism is inherent in a synchronous e-learning environment, but I realise it is important to see these theories in practice. It is also important to use a range of technologies and resources to cater for different learning styles. So, I have picked out a couple of short YouTube clips: the first gives a visual overview of constructivism and the second is an example of a constructivist activity in a primary school class. Through these clips we should see the strength of the relationship between constructivism and synchronous e-learning.

The first clip gives a brief overview of constructivism. The clip makes it clear that constructivism is about the teacher and students working together to construct new ideas, knowledge and understanding.



I hope you can see how this also has links with postmodern theories of education. In a previous post I described how the interaction between a teacher and student, in postmodernism, should be seen as a conversation – that is – the teacher and students working together.

The second YouTube clip is an example of a constructivist activity in a primary classroom. Students are given shapes of various colours, shapes, sizes and textures that groups of students will sort. Every time a student uses a word relating to the characteristics of the objects, the teacher writes the word in the ‘yes’ column.



How is this activity constructivist? Through this activity, students will transform their prior knowledge about the properties of objects into new knowledge – they are constructing knowledge. Students not only work with their peers, they also listen and learn from them. The teacher acts as a facilitator of the discussion.

What is the relationship between this activity and synchronous e-learning? Can anyone think of a simple synchronous e-learning activity (which utilises computer/www2.0 technology) that uses similar theories/ideas to the activity in the clip? (I will post my own learning activity as a comment to this post).

Philosophy, Constructivism And Asynchronous E-Learning

Introduction

Micah makes the very interesting point that a ‘synchronous e-learning classroom is a constructivist classroom.’ Indeed, he suggests that synchronous learning does not merely employ the ideas and strategies of constructivism, but actually is, in essence, constructivist. This is, perhaps, the key point of difference between synchronous and asynchronous e-learning.

Firstly, we need to be clear that there are two related, but importantly different strands of constructivism: social and cognitive. While I would argue that asynchronous has no problems in adopting a cognitive constructivist approach, there may be more difficulty in creating a social constructivist environment. For the purpose of this post, I am interested in social constructivism and this is what is meant by the phrase “constructivism” from here on. Finally, I am assuming the acceptance of constructivism as a desired educational philosophy. The debate over whether it is in actual fact desirable will come later.

Individualism and Asynchronous e-Learning

 There is the possibility for asynchronous e-learning to follow constructivist ideas. For example, a blog allows students to create knowledge together. However there is, inherent to asynchronous e-learning, the option to ignore the ‘Other’. Whereas synchronous e-learning is fundamentally communitarian, asynchronous e-learning provides for – perhaps even supports – the primacy of the individual over the community. In a world where the message conveyed is so often “it’s all about me”, we as educators may need to be careful that we do not unnecessarily or, indeed, unwittingly contribute to this.

Marketing professor at Monash University, Michael Morrison, is quoted by Rebecca Martin as saying that ‘While there's something like 15 million iPods out there, not one of them are the same. The iPod carries “my music”, it is “my space”’. In an asynchronous world, this customisation becomes possible. And customisation, of course, gives extraordinary power to the creator/host. I can choose to block people from being able to comment on my blog, or I can moderate comments or I can make it a “closed” site altogether. If this kind of becomes normative, it severely diminishes one’s understanding of, and commitment to, community. While we are indeed individuals, we exist as part of a society and, thus, other people, it could be argued, are integral to our own “journeys” and sense of self.

I will post again tomorrow, focusing on the relationship between the self and the 'other' and creating a social constructivist learning environment.

Synchronous e-learning and Constructivism

The philosophical and educational benefits of synchronous e-learning can be justified by looking at a few experts and theories related to the aforementioned fields.

It is interesting to note that I am not the only person who has mentioned the connection between e-learning technologies and constructivism. Andrea/Martine have used Vygotsky's Social-Constructivist theory to underpin their proposal that a computer can be utlized as a useful tool to enhance student learning and social interactions. Likewise, synchronous e-learning has a focus on constructivism and its links with social interaction.

Constructivists believe that individuals must construct their own knowledge and that all knowledge is temporary (that is, each concept is considered true until further experiences allow the learner to refine it). Learners in a constructivist classroom use a ‘problem-centred’ approach and content is not studied as isolated facts but as broad concepts and interdisciplinary themes (see here for a brief introduction to constructivism). Furthermore, ‘constructivism emphasises that learning takes place in a sociocultural environment. We learn not as isolated individuals acquiring chunks of disassociated quasi-permanent truths, but as members of society’ (Kate Wilson, 2003).

The notion of constructivism and social interaction are at the heart of synchronous e-learning, where, with practice, learners become aware of themselves as members of a community. These ideas can be supported by the work of Russian psychologist, and educational theorist, Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934).

At the core of Vygotsky’s Social-Cultural Theory (an introduction to this theory can be found here), is the idea that child development is the result of the interactions between children and their social environment. These interactions include interactions between the learner and their parents, teachers, siblings and peers. There are also interactions that occur between the learner and significant objects such as books, toys and culturally significant places. Through these interactions, learners actively construct knowledge, skills, and attitudes that do not merely mirror the world around them. Though Vygotsky lived well before the development of e-learning technologies, it is clear that synchronous e-learning can be included in the list of ‘interactions’ or ‘tools’.

Stephen has suggested that asynchronous e-learning increases a person’s ability to process information which ‘may well actually contribute to the development of - both a sense and real manifestation - a learning community’. This may well be true, though it appears as though asynchronous e-learning lacks the interactive and collaborative elements that are foundational to constructivism and social interaction. The construction of knowledge in asynchronous e-learning does not occur immediately (in real-time) as it does in synchronous e-learning. Does this inhibit and slow learning?

A synchronous e-learning classroom is a constructivist classroom. Each student brings prior knowledge, developed through a complex web of interactions, with them into the learning environment. Within the synchronous community, students are able to ask questions and gather responses immediately in order to construct further knowledge. The synchronous e-learning context is one in which students play an active role in learning. Information is gathered in a collaborative manner, with the teacher working with the students to help facilitate meaning.