Thinking about Theory

I've enjoyed reading Gary Thomas's book 'Education and Theory: Strangers in Paradigms' because it has challenged everything I thought I knew about theory!

He argues that educational 'theory' is a variety of ways of thinking about education, and calling it 'theory' is an attempt to make our endeavors sound more like 'proper' scientific thinking, but in reality stifles thinking. Educational thinking should be more 'nuanced', creative and tentative if it is to help us understand more about education. He even suggests a rather interesting list of alternative thinking words to use instead!

Thomas, G. (2007). Education and Theory: Strangers in Paradigms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Theories

As part of the next module, I'm looking at the use of theory by researchers in the distance learning/e-Learning area. There are not only a wide variety of different theories used, but some writers encourage an even wider range! Here are some of the theories (in no particular order):

• Associationist
• Behaviourism
• Connectionism
• Constructivism
• Social constructivism
• Conversational framework
• Design Patterns
• Community of Practice
• Authentic Learning
• Social Learning
• Flexible/open learning
• Student centred learning
• Adult learning
• Educational technology/instructional design
• Grounded theory
• Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale
• Technological determinism
• Critical theory

Some e-learning writers  use several theories (or develop their own) and some don't seem to use any. 

Steve Wheeler's blog post on 'Learning Theories for the Digital Age' overviews some of the newer theories that are being used and developed and argues the case for updating or at least reviewing our existing learning theories (at least as they apply to e-Learning)

Given the need for researchers to develop a sense (at least) of a knowledge paradigm and reflexivity it seems pretty essential to clarify a clear theory and a rationale for using it.

Grids

The most interesting chapter in Stephenson's book is his chapter on Dialogue, Support and Control because of the clear way he represents types of learning activities. He describes learning activities as being on two types of continuum - the extent to which the learner manages the learning, and the extent to which the task is an open one. This is illustrated as below.

I recall that when I shared this a few years ago with colleagues at a conference a participant stated the obvious point that we should design learning to move students from the 'bottom-left' to the 'top-right' quadrants. It is this that has been significant in my own thinking and is now an integral part of the Best Practice Models e-Design Template.

This is also significant as the need to support/facilitate students as they develop independent learning skills reflects my personal model for learning. As Jackson notes in another chapter, the pedagogic conceptions of the teacher have a significant impact on student learning.

However, as Hase argues, it is not easy to embed learner-centered learning in teaching contexts where the culture is dominated by a teacher-centric focus and by a lack of alignment of stakeholder needs ie learners, staff and administration.

Hase, S., & Ellis, A. (2001). Problems with online learning are systemic, not technical. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Online: New Pedagogies for New Technologies (Creating success). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Jackson, B., & Anagnostopoulou, K. (2001). Making the right connections. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Online: New Pedagogies for New Technologies (Creating success). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Stephenson, J., & Coomey, M. (2001). Online Learning: it is all about dialogue, involvement, support and control - according to the research. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Online: New Pedagogies for New Technologies (Creating success). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Globalview

I'm reading Teaching and Learning Online that I've read several times before. However, this time I've read the chapter on Globalview - an online business simulation designed to encourage students to manage their own learning by working in international teams on projects. The book is dated, 2001, but the simulation is still running and can be seen here: http://www.globalview.org/default.htm. I wonder if any research has been done on the student experience in this simulation?

Schlais, D., & Davis, R. (2001). Distance learning through educational networks: the global view experience. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Online: New Pedagogies for New Technologies (Creating success). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Distance Learning retention

I've been reading Parker's 1999 article on distance learning retention, and found it very interesting, in particular in relation to his use of the Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale.  The research question for this study was: Can locus of control, gender, number of distance education courses completed, age, financial assistance, and number of hours employed predict dropout from distance education courses? He study suggested that locus of control and source of financial assistance were the most significant factors affecting dropout.

The Rotter scale sounds interesting and seems to be repeated in some more recent literature on learning success generally. This is reflected in the e-Design Template, but perhaps the self-organised learner phase needs to be introduced earlier, rather than later?

Parker, A. (1999). A Study of Variables that Predict Dropout from Distance Education. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2).

Open Learning

I'm reading 'Exploring Open and Distance Learning' (1992) Derek Rountree and it's a blast from the past!

When I started my first teaching job at Preston College in 1994 it was as a 'facilitator' for English. Essentially, I set up an open-learning workshop for students so that they could use self-study workbooks as part of their normal scheduled classes.

Rountree's first chapter discusses the definitions of open and distance learning and the philosophy behind them. He talks about open learning as giving learners choice about what they learn and how they learn it and explores a range of traditional and distance learning programmes. Distance learning often seems to be driven by a philosophy of openness and a drive for widening participation, but the pedagogic structure can be similar to a traditional 'closed' programme, and not very open at all. I might look at the validation documents for the original course for some of our distance learning programmes to see what the developers say about the reasons for setting up DL programmes.

Chapter 2 covers learners and includes a range of andragogy concepts about motivations, learning styles, objective-driven courses and ways to develop learner autonomy. The e-Design template I've been working on (http://bestpracticemodels.wiki.staffs.ac.uk/ ) includes specific guidance to DL designers about developing learner's self-organised learning skills.

Chapter 3 focusses on learner support and discusses the wide range of support that learners may need for successful learning and suggests a range of people and roles that can offer this support. An important consideration is about the type of support - is it 'content' or 'process' support? To what extent does the support build skills and confidence in independent learning? Has the support been planned and designed as part of the learning?

Chapter 4 seems a rather dated review of the types of media available and the types of learning that each can be used for. However, this is a useful reminder of the need to consider how audio/video /computers /teleconferencing etc are achieving the learning outcomes.

Chapter 5 is a review of the structure and design of an open learning package whether it is a 'tutorial-in-print' or a reflective guide to learning. Many of the suggestions are very relevant to e-learning.

Overall, this book is a reminder of the principles of open learning and how distance learning can be designed that is educationally 'open'

Reflexivity

It seems appropriate, but I'm currently reading about reflexivity. How do 'I' and my research connect? Alan Peshkin's 1988 article 'In Search of Subjectivity - One's Own' is an account of how his six 'I's' (Ethnic-Maintenance; Community -Maintenance; E-Pluribus-Unum; Justice-seeking; Pedagogical-meliorist; Nonresearch Human) have influenced his research in both positive and negative ways. He advocates the systematic monitoring of the self to evaluate its impact on the research. I wrote a summary of some of my selves (not sure which 'I' is writing them, though!):

• My professional role at Staffordshire University currently involves me in working with teams of staff to help them design effective online learning for both blended and distance learning courses. I have designed and run a range of training sessions, workshops, discussion groups, and seminars etc many of which are online. My (paid) work role makes me keen to produce research that is perceived as ‘gold standard’ and can be used to support my role in promoting online learning.

• In my ‘student’ role, I have studied in classrooms and lecture theatres, and also as an online distance student and found both to be both challenging and stimulating. I have a conscientious approach to my own learning and prefer a linear, structured and methodological approach rather than a loose, experimental course design. This may influence my interest in and preference for certain types of distance learning course designs.

• As a white, western, middle-class woman I have had the advantages of a free formal education up to degree level that I was able to combine with raising a family. This has led to opportunities for a variety of professional level work. This underpins my interest in, and enthusiasm for, formal accredited education and its benefits for self and society.

Greenbank (2003) discusses a wide range of ways that values impact on the research and attempts to suggest ways to minimise the impact. But it seems there is no way to do this - the best he can suggest is that all researchers, both those using qualitative and quantitative methods, are aware of their values and perspectives and share them with their readers.