#16 A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments (OELEs)

A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments (OELEs) -by Susan M. Land and Michael J. Hannafin ERT&D. Vol.44, No.3, 1996, p.37-53 ISSN 1042-1629

Land et al’s “ conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environment (OELE)” (1996), though written 12 years ago, is still an important framework added to currently available learning environments. This paper provided unique perspective for pondering. The following are my reading summary and reflection/questions.

Summary:

The authors proposed five elements of OELEs to represent the theory-in-action development process. They are:
1. Learner and system context
2. System affordance
3. Intention-action cycle
4. System response/feedback; and
5. Learning processing.

They also detailed the conceptual framework with a real life example -ErgoMotion to illustrate the processes of theory-building via their model.
The authors concluded that open-ended learning involves learning process that was mediated by the “unique” intentions and purposes of individuals.

Reflection:

The word “unique” in the article caught my attention. These groups of individuals with unique intentions and purposes of individuals, from my observation of learners that I have encountered with, tend to be at the high end of individual characteristic spectrum. For example, they tend to possess non-normality of motivations, endeavors, preferred learning styles, specific interests, self-efficacy, problem solving strategies and skills, prior experience and knowledge, goal-orientation and so on personal characteristics. These non-mediocrities are what Cervone & Wood refer to – the background context that influences the choices learners make in the environment, and the extent to which they persevere on a task and the types of goals they set (1995).
This is what I meant – Land and Hannafin’s framework is a unique one.

Observations/questions:

Contemporary theoretical constructs such as constructivism (Jonassen, 1991), situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989), and cognitive flexibility (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991) emphasize learners’ active learning processes. The ideas of microworlds (Papert, 1993a; 1993b; Rieber, 1992), anchored instruction (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992) were linked to contemporary pedagogical approaches initiated by Vygotsky and Piaget. In their views, the learner is perceived as AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTOR of KNOWLEDGE. Thus, the whole tout of self-directed learning, experiential learning, situated/anchored learning comprise a range of empowering learning theories and frameworks to provide learners with the optimal learning environments.

I did not pose an inquiry on such a theory or assumption relating to constructivism or OELEs model that whether all the learners, majority of learners, some of the learners, or just a small group of learners are viewed as active constructors of knowledge (sounds like an anti-democratic -elitism obscurant?!) Furthermore, to what extent of activeness and constructiveness the knowledge is generated or claimed is my another question. For in the era of Piaget and Vygotsky, the elements of systematic contexts , system affordance, intention-action cycle , and system response/feedback might not have been added into the scenario. Not until Bronfenbrenner did bio-ecological system approach appear in the larger picture of human processing learning.

Personally, I see the merits of constructivism, particularly in the cyber knowledge explosive era. Constructivism and its sister theoretical pedagogies open the venues for the cyber knowledge aggregation (such as networking and learning communities) and knowledge generating. In our Joomla assignments, we adopted much of adult learning theories into our project reflecting such a preferred approach. Nevertheless, even within our mini higher education learning community, the ideals of collaborative and self-directed learning essence is still facing many challenges in terms of different levels of prior knowledge (or individual experience), self-regulations and endeavors, and different perception, interpretation, evaluation, and extrapolation in the intention-action cycle (i.e., levels of process in theory-in-action).

I understand and appreciate OELEs model’s richness and uniqueness. Diversity or variability, like collaboration, cooperation, group work, even as well as team work, is a double edged sword. It brings up kaleidoscopic points of views and challenges the homogenous monotony, as well as stimulates deeper understanding and problem solving capacity, but it also accompanies with some cumbersome or undesirable effects that tolls time and energy.

Comparing our mini Joomla collaborative adult learning group to my experiencing in engaging with my much diverse student body, ranging from having reading and writing challenges to the mature, authentically self-directed learners; from the young high school drop-out to the silvery 60+ grandparents; from the once wearing jump suit guys to the single mom/dad all gathering in the same online or f2f classrooms , the OELEs model indeed, is a unique one if it is applied into my teaching and learning environment with great caution and endeavors.