|
Merging Constructivism and Technology
Learning and Online Interaction: Integrating Constructivist Principles with a Web-based Instructional Environment First, learning and learners are necessarily the focus in
discussing constructivist learning principles as applied to this study. Learning strategies are defined by Weinstein & Mayer (1986) as: thoughts and behaviors that are intended to influence how a person learns,
thinks, and motivates self in order to carry out a learning task. Studies indicate (Derry & Murphy, 1986; Glaser, 1990) that capable learners use a variety of cognitive strategies (select, organize, and integrate
information), as well as use metacognitive strategies (plan, evaluate, and regulate learning). Capable learners are also self-directed, as having the capacity to design and carry out their own learning activities
(Thomas & Rohwer, 1986). Learning strategy based on a constructivist perspective takes a learner-centered approach, and contends that meaning and knowledge are constructed by the learner through a process
of relating new information to prior knowledge and experience. Learning is viewed as an active, purposeful, and meaning-generating process that occurs within the learner (Shuell, 1986). Learning
involves the transformation of information into meaningful knowledge; that is, personally relevant meaning emerges from utilizing cognitive strategies to generate understanding and construct knowledge from learning
events (Jonassen, 1985). Educators who are experienced users of computer conferencing and the Web might easily envision various components of effective distance learning experiences being aligned
with constructivist views on learning and being applied to innovations in distance education and CMC technology, such as Web-based computer conferencing.
For example, the following are researchers' findings that explicate the last point:
1. Independence of the student is a critical factor in learning (Wedemeyer, 1981). 2. The learner needs to have control, and to take responsibility for pace of own progress (Keegan,
1986). 3. The learning environment must be "learner-determined," allowing for self-directed learning (Moore, 1994). 4. Educational environments can facilitate learning by supporting
dialogic exchange of questions, answers, arguments, comments, feedback (Harasim et al., 1995; Holmberg, 1986). 5. High levels of interaction (e.g., discussion, feedback) is an effective way of
learning (Perraton, 1988).
Distance education seems capable of absorbing a merger of constructivist learning principles and the latest evolutions of Web-based instructional environments. Research, then, must be continually
reassessed and redirected. As an example of this redirection in response to the described merger, Gunawardena & Zittle (1995) identified five areas needing research relative to effective distance instruction:
learner-centered instruction, interaction, social presence, cognitive strategies, and collaborative learning. In view of those five areas, it seems possible that interaction might be a foundation for
the others. If the focus of the instructional environment is on interaction, it follows that it would most likely be a learner-centered approach (Bruner, 1966) that facilitates interaction between groups of people.
Environments high in interaction encourage students to develop cognitive strategies (Henri, 1992), and facilitate collaborative learning instructional strategies (Kaye, 1992). The key is surmised to be in the
interaction. That is the focal point, the unifying center. Interaction is a widely discussed phenomenon of distance learning. Going back to a study in 1973, Moore, a leading pioneer in this area, outlined
a model of distance education that described distance education as a function of two variables: structure and dialogue. Dialogue represented interaction, communication, and correspondence. Structure referred to the
organization of the course (e.g., delivery of instruction via computer conferencing), and the dialogue (student-student and student-teacher interaction) was contained by the structure. So, different
technologically-mediated structures allow for and produce different types, amounts, and quality of dialogue. Moore (1983) also addressed the teaching-learning process at a distance in terms of interaction. His
theory of "transactional distance" stated that the distance in distance education is not just physical, but presents pedagogical and psychological barriers to overcome as well (Gayol, 1995). In Moore's theory
interaction is a key variable, the main consideration in instructional design. He stressed building environments that are learner-centered, friendly, and structured, and that allow for exchange of ideas and dialogue.
Despite such emphasis, the whole issue of interaction has been an area of much debate in distance education research. There are interactions with people, with instructional strategies and learning events, and with
the technology (software designs, interfaces, and hyperlinks). Just prior to the microcomputer revolution, Moore (1989) made a distinction among the interactions:
- learner-content,
- learner-learner, and,
- learner-instructor.
In 1994, as the microcomputer industry flourished, and Web browsers (Netscape, Mosaic) were just coming on the scene, Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) added "learner-interface interaction" to
Moore's typology. This reflected recent advancements in sophisticated technological environments. That is, learners have to interact with the interfaces (buttons, navigation, etc.) in order to communicate and respond to
instruction. More recent research (Beaudoin, 1995) continues to emphasize interaction as one of the most important elements of instruction in distance education. It is a widely held view (Harasim et
al., 1995) that a high level of interaction has a positive effect on distance education courses; although, it is not clear from research how it relates to the quality of learning. Overall, the concept of interaction in
distance learning, especially in CMC and even more in the latest evolution, Web-based CMC, would appear to be much more complicated than it has been treated in traditional instructional theory or conventional classroom
teaching (e.g., Socratic method; group discussions). Online interaction in the literature tends to be expressed as a puzzlement, unresolved as of yet by scholarly investigation. For example, scholars have been
asking:
How is frequency of interaction crucial to learning (Beaudoin, 1995)? How is interaction affected by a particular online environment (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1995)?
How is interaction more important for some learners than others (Beaudoin, 1995)? How can learning theory be linked to online interaction (Saba, 1995)? How is interaction related to certain content, or types of
instructional strategies (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1995; Gonzalez, 1995)? How does interaction facilitate improved student comprehension, understanding (knowledge building) (Hiltz, 1994)? What role does
interaction play in the learning process of learners isolated at a distance (Kearsley, 1995)? How does interaction, in itself, reflect learning (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1995)?
Beaudoin (1995, p. 1) summarized distance education research on online interaction, in positing that interaction is a "critical dimension influencing instruction in virtually every distance
teaching/learning milieu." Researchers have (a) categorized the online interaction (Henri, 1992), (b) posited the educational benefits of that interaction (Mason, 1994), and (c) compared the interaction of this unique
environment to traditional classrooms (Hiltz, 1994). Though recognized as crucial, all aspects of interaction remain important research issues. Few studies truly isolate the interactive component from
other aspects of the whole environment and analyze its content. Henri (1992) created a typology of the interaction, allowing the categories to emerge from the data; and as in Mason's (1994) study, it was not linked to
theory. Isolating the online interaction does not mean the researcher must "decontextualize" it (Maxwell, 1996), but study it as its own phenomena, in context. Research needs to go beyond the measurement of results
(e.g., testing, projects, and student satisfaction, Hiltz, 1995), or the analysis of what stimulates more of it (e.g., high level of presence by instructor, and highly structured activities, Harasim et al., 1995).
Overall, the use of computer conferencing has generally produced positive results (Harasim, 1990; Waggoner, 1992); but, there is a need, as Kearsley stated (1995, p. 87) that we need "descriptive studies that provide a
clear picture of interactivity as it currently exists in distance education courses." He goes suggested that we need studies that reveal how the different types of delivery systems affect the learning processes (e.g.,
knowledge-building). He stated that the "value of interaction needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each distance education program" (p. 90). It is argued here that it is imperative to
attach sound pedagogical theory to that case-by-case description. In support of that idea, Saba (1995) asked, how can learning theory inform the interaction in various distance education scenarios? He referred to the
importance of understanding interaction by concluding that a thorough knowledge of the nature of interaction is central to an understanding of distance education. To those ends, this study sought answers. Specifically,
the component of interest to this study is online interaction and its link to a constructivist theoretical model of learning. |
