H187 Activity 8: Nichols (2003) on theory of elearning
Tuesday, 2 Feb 2016, 09:31
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Steve Bamlett, Tuesday, 2 Feb 2016, 09:38
Nichols (2003):
My Agreement with the 10 statements (clearly NOT
hypotheses), and;
Considering Statement 4.
ONE: Agreement Grid
Statement
Agree <
Disagree =
Unsure N
REASON
Because:
1
<
The kind of
e-learning model and theory chosen will complement the function of the
learning: superficial learning can use entirely behaviourist methods, if
deeper learning is required, it cannot. Models & theories can (will) be
mixed.
2
<
In OU Live,
for instance, work can be, if
pedagogic design supports it, multi-modal involving voice, typed text,
writing, drawing, spaces, icons, imported pictures – within the same
accessible environment (allowing for alternatives for people with a sensory
impairment). This versatility allows learning in different styles to
complement each other and allows for learner differentiation.
3
<
As for 1
above
4
N
This is still,
for me, to be decided. See point TWO below.
5
<
Ideally
these two functions in education interact. As a bland generalisation, I feel
that more traditional pedagogies veer towards content transmission models whilst
radical delivery emphasises process more and makes it part of the learning (under
the label of ‘metacognition’). This can happen in F2F & online methods.
6
<
This would
be true of any successful teaching and learning event.
7
=
No. Design
comes first. During that process resources will be compared for their
efficacy in delivering that part of the design. Compendium swim-lanes enable
this.
8
<
Because all
learning aiming to be successful will do this
9
<
Goes without
saying
10
<
As does
this.
TWO: more on
hypothesis 4.
On the
surface of it, there is not a lot to disagree with here but it illustrates a ‘beef’ I
have with the whole exercise. The term ‘hypothesis’ makes this all sound like
an empirical theory is being offered, whereas in fact these statements are not
hypotheses at all.
They are
aggregations of lots of statements tied together with a lot of assumptions. On
their own they could not be tested experimentally at all. Hence, although they
are statements worth discussion, they do not advance the debate about the
necessity or otherwise of theory to guide practice.
Garrison
(2000) has argued that the context of technology enhanced learning (TEL) has
gone well beyond fascination with what technology can and cannot do, into
exploitation of its ‘affordances’ in innovative practices, that are emerging all the time from trials in areas in and outside education. Hence, thus far
statement 4 is worthwhile – it too stresses the precedence of the needs of
teaching and learning (which pedagogical theory could be said to represent)
over the desire to find a place where innovative technologies might fit just
because they are there.
But the
statement feels very muddled to me. It stresses ‘successful implementation’ as
the source of the evidence of TEL’s capacity to advance. This is not, as I see
it, the same as stressing the importance of 'instructional design' in guiding the
use of TEL, as proposed in his citation of Diana Laurillard or Ravenscroft,
including the latter’s insistence on the need to examine the affordances of technologies
in the prior context of pedagogic theory. Theory is not dependent on
implementation but practice is: that is why we still need to differentiate
them. That a ‘learning design’ can be successfully implemented is not evidence
of the value of the theory and design process that preceded it on its own. Implementation involves a
lot of variable factors that are not anticipated by any theory. Hence
implementation 'success' is a very impure evidence that can be used to back up
any old theory and has been used like that. You would still need to look at how implementation dealt with
those extraneous variables and question whether they are not themselves factors
which should make us rethink theory. Laurillard makes a convincing argument
that pedagogic design is a science but that is not the same as lauding
successful practice in itself as a primary lead for innovation. Indeed, this
seems to me a nonsense: we only change practice, it might be saying, when
practice changes successfully. That seems like begging the question.
The real
question is – ‘how do we change practice to meet goals or outcomes that
practice must meet'. Planning, design and theory precede and lead implementation
therefore, which necessarily move on by trials of success and not on presumed
success. Success is only success in relation to the goals we want to meet –
hence this statement needs to be less woolly. My preference would be:
‘ELearning
advances primarily through its adoption into a theory-led planning and design
process in education that is explicit about the goals it must meet, and by
critical evaluation of its outcomes and processes.’
References
Garrison, R. (2000) ‘Theoretical Challenges for Distance
education in the 21st Century: a shift from Structural to
transactional Issues’ in International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 1 (1) 1-17. Available
from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2 (Accessed 30/01/2016)
Nichols (2003) ‘A theory of eLearning’ in an International Forum of Educational
Technology & Society Formal Discussion Initiation: 10 – 21 March 2003. Available from: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss_march2003.html
(Accessed 30/01/2016).
H187 Activity 8: Nichols (2003) on theory of elearning
Nichols (2003):
My Agreement with the 10 statements (clearly NOT hypotheses), and;
Considering Statement 4.
ONE: Agreement Grid
Statement
Agree <
Disagree =
Unsure N
REASON
Because:
1
<
The kind of e-learning model and theory chosen will complement the function of the learning: superficial learning can use entirely behaviourist methods, if deeper learning is required, it cannot. Models & theories can (will) be mixed.
2
<
In OU Live, for instance, work can be, if pedagogic design supports it, multi-modal involving voice, typed text, writing, drawing, spaces, icons, imported pictures – within the same accessible environment (allowing for alternatives for people with a sensory impairment). This versatility allows learning in different styles to complement each other and allows for learner differentiation.
3
<
As for 1 above
4
N
This is still, for me, to be decided. See point TWO below.
5
<
Ideally these two functions in education interact. As a bland generalisation, I feel that more traditional pedagogies veer towards content transmission models whilst radical delivery emphasises process more and makes it part of the learning (under the label of ‘metacognition’). This can happen in F2F & online methods.
6
<
This would be true of any successful teaching and learning event.
7
=
No. Design comes first. During that process resources will be compared for their efficacy in delivering that part of the design. Compendium swim-lanes enable this.
8
<
Because all learning aiming to be successful will do this
9
<
Goes without saying
10
<
As does this.
TWO: more on hypothesis 4.
On the surface of it, there is not a lot to disagree with here but it illustrates a ‘beef’ I have with the whole exercise. The term ‘hypothesis’ makes this all sound like an empirical theory is being offered, whereas in fact these statements are not hypotheses at all.
They are aggregations of lots of statements tied together with a lot of assumptions. On their own they could not be tested experimentally at all. Hence, although they are statements worth discussion, they do not advance the debate about the necessity or otherwise of theory to guide practice.
Garrison (2000) has argued that the context of technology enhanced learning (TEL) has gone well beyond fascination with what technology can and cannot do, into exploitation of its ‘affordances’ in innovative practices, that are emerging all the time from trials in areas in and outside education. Hence, thus far statement 4 is worthwhile – it too stresses the precedence of the needs of teaching and learning (which pedagogical theory could be said to represent) over the desire to find a place where innovative technologies might fit just because they are there.
But the statement feels very muddled to me. It stresses ‘successful implementation’ as the source of the evidence of TEL’s capacity to advance. This is not, as I see it, the same as stressing the importance of 'instructional design' in guiding the use of TEL, as proposed in his citation of Diana Laurillard or Ravenscroft, including the latter’s insistence on the need to examine the affordances of technologies in the prior context of pedagogic theory. Theory is not dependent on implementation but practice is: that is why we still need to differentiate them. That a ‘learning design’ can be successfully implemented is not evidence of the value of the theory and design process that preceded it on its own. Implementation involves a lot of variable factors that are not anticipated by any theory. Hence implementation 'success' is a very impure evidence that can be used to back up any old theory and has been used like that. You would still need to look at how implementation dealt with those extraneous variables and question whether they are not themselves factors which should make us rethink theory. Laurillard makes a convincing argument that pedagogic design is a science but that is not the same as lauding successful practice in itself as a primary lead for innovation. Indeed, this seems to me a nonsense: we only change practice, it might be saying, when practice changes successfully. That seems like begging the question.
The real question is – ‘how do we change practice to meet goals or outcomes that practice must meet'. Planning, design and theory precede and lead implementation therefore, which necessarily move on by trials of success and not on presumed success. Success is only success in relation to the goals we want to meet – hence this statement needs to be less woolly. My preference would be:
‘ELearning advances primarily through its adoption into a theory-led planning and design process in education that is explicit about the goals it must meet, and by critical evaluation of its outcomes and processes.’
References
Garrison, R. (2000) ‘Theoretical Challenges for Distance education in the 21st Century: a shift from Structural to transactional Issues’ in International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 1 (1) 1-17. Available from: http://www.irrodl.org/ index.php/ irrodl/ article/ view/ 2 (Accessed 30/01/2016)
Nichols (2003) ‘A theory of eLearning’ in an International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Formal Discussion Initiation: 10 – 21 March 2003. Available from: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss_march2003.html (Accessed 30/01/2016).