My role as an academic in the LT community
Within the LT community, I am a believer that innovation and responsibility go hand in hand. Being one of the digital immigrants of this information technology revolution, I would consider myself to be an enthusiastic, caring, and conscientious teacher-researcher. I have always been focusing on the need to be at the forefront of educational change and innovation.
Starting fifteen years ago, I was inspired by the power of multimedia technology as an art learner that began my life-long journey with learning technologies. I started integrating multimedia technology into Art curriculum as a grad student and teaching assistant, and later into my Social Science teaching both at a two and a four year colleges. I perceive myself as a rational LT enthusiast and educator with a caring, conscientious, and an adventurous quality to cross cultures and to immerse in multiple ways of learning.
My current career goal is to be a diligent educator-researcher. I have been designing and implementing curriculum and instruction for six years at my current work setting. I am also one of those who dare to teach-research-serve, never ceasing to learn. Thus, learning and teaching become an important part of my life. For example, the curiosity and desire to learn have led me to a multi-disciplinary background through three previous Master’s degree learning and the current Ph.D. program. I ended up having five majors and four minors: Sociology/Social Psychology, Socio-political science, Studio Art, Art Education, Learning Technologies, with minors of Computer Science, Women’s Studies, Journalism, and Military Education. Fortunately, Learning Technologies weave my previous multidisciplinary teaching and learning experience into a holistic tapestry. In this sense, I would also perceive myself as an artistic and versatile educator and learner who actively participates in many scholarly activities and productions at UW-Stout, my current work place-Chippewa Valley Technical College, as well as at University of Minnesota- Twin Cities.
Marshall McLuhan once pointed out that we shape our tools, but then our tools shape us. The dramatic change of information technology since 1960s with the PLATO system along with today’s Web 2.0 provides myriad teaching and learning possibilities for more facilitators and learners than ever before to access knowledge and management. With this constant advance in computer and communications technologies, research in educational technologies has undergone a paradigmatic shift toward a new horizon: enhancing the fluid mobility between theories in and actions? This new horizon focuses on merging the study of learning in complete, complex, and interactive learning environments with the use of emerging technology to advance the integration of contents, pedagogy, and technology.
Those Who Can, Teach – Creatively, And Responsibly. – Crystal
My teaching philosophy
In a differentiated teaching methods seminar, I found an inspirational message - “When we identify a student who doesn’t understand, louder and slower won’t do it. We need to be more creative than ever; when we identify students who already understand, doing it again isn’t acceptable. We need to be more creative than ever”. Students learn in different ways and paces under various circumstances, which is what I consider to be the most challenging issue in the Digital Age. The key solution is “we need to be more creative than ever”! This is what I meant at the beginning of this statement – Innovation and responsibility go hand in hand.
At the individual level, being a cross cultural learner and educator, immersed in this best and the most revolutionary period of time, teaching has always been a challenging yet highly rewarding profession. At the collective level, this sense of challenge is particularly acute for educators today. Educators have been facing increasingly diverse student population, and the demands of accountabilities. At the same time, education in the Digital Age is endowed with an environment of unprecedented opportunities. Learning technology is a gift to practitioners with golden opportunities that open windows for the further encouragements of students’ learning, communicating with parents, building learning communities, advocating the future of learning technologies, convincing policy makers, and empowering the human capital, just to name a few positive functions.
These opportunities demand all stakeholders reshape and reflect on the goals and purpose of education. The technology affordances of the Internet and the constant innovated interactivities make it feasible both in access and delivery of interactive/differentiated methods tailored to diverse students’ needs. Thus, it is imperative for educators to be innovative, responsible, and insightful in designing, implementing, and assessing the affordances of technologies in enhancing student learning.
As a conscientious educator, I don’t take any available opportunities to engage with my teaching and learning environment for granted. I value every engagement with students, colleagues, Union, administrators, and the whole edu-ecological system. I deeply believe that the well informed citizens are the currency of democracy. I envision the digital citizenship prevailing in every corner of human societies. And this democratic reality has been growing fruitfully via the ubiquitous NGI super Broadband accessibility. But for learning to happen effectively, it needs seamless hardware and software interface. It needs the innovative integration of contents, pedagogies with technological affordances. It needs a conscientious educator to take on his catalyst role to make it happen effectively and efficiently.
Personally, I benefit from rich media technology’s affordances that assist my teaching philosophy and pedagogies toward fruition. During the last ten years’ college teaching journey, I was a recipient of the outstanding contributor to UW-System and Color of Woman Award in 2001 representing UW-Stout, and Teacher of the Year in 2007, representing my district for Chippewa Valley Technical College. Educational technology is one of the key scaffolds supporting my pedagogical success.
A Three-Prong Sociological Approach
My Research Agenda
In the Educational Technologies field, many disciplines have assisted in building the knowledge foundation necessary to understand human beings’ learning and interacting with the aids of technologies. For example, Behavioral-cognitive-Psychology, Neuroscience, Computer Science, and numerous renowned learning technology scholars’ endeavors have contributed immensely to this understanding from a wide range of perspectives.
Having come originally from a Sociology/Social Psychology background, I envision sociological perspectives integrated into the mainstream research trends. I am interested in the social forces shaping daily reality in the Digital Age from the micro and macro aspects. These approaches such as structure and functionalism, symbolic interactionism, social conflict perspectives and their combined methods have generated three strands of research agenda that guide my current and future studies.
From the macro structural-functional perspective
During the last decade, research in the field of human capital management (e.g., HPI or HPT) and organizational cost-effectiveness research tinted with the flavor of this perspective. Tied to my teaching philosophy, to keep the currency of democracy up-to-date, educator-researchers have to confront the issues of empowering human capital, enhance the quality of accessing and utilizing information technology in the digital age.[1] One of the concrete examples of this research orientation is my interest in studying e-learning in a technical college setting. My last ten years’ teaching at a four year poly-technical university and current two-year technical college provides me rich information regarding how different structures and functions of educational configurations affects teaching and learning pertaining to learning technologies.
Though most two year technical colleges, comprehensive community colleges, and four year colleges tend to be lumped together as the post-secondary educational system or “higher educational” institution, [2] they are fundamentally different in many aspects. These include educational missions, climates, diversity of student body, specific roles of faculty and staff, funding, infrastructure and the overall ecological configuration, just to name a few, comprise the uniqueness of two-year technical colleges that stand out as a special and controversial educational entity. These two-year colleges play a crucial role in American economic, political, and educational reality. But there is limited amount of research focusing on the complex educational ecology of two year colleges that affects the daily teaching and learning, in particular, when relating to learning technologies. This is a field that I would like to focus on.
From the social conflict perspective
I am focused on social stratification[3] both in domestic and global domains tied to digital equity and quality which has potentials to lead to ecological/system change. For example, digital-divide is one of established fields of research tackling the gaps and effects of race/ethnicity, gender, social class, disabilities, as well as others relating socially constructed reality in the digital era. Another current example to illustrate this approach was my last semester’s collaborative “Rural Families Speak” project. It was a longitudinal multistate research focusing on rural low income mothers’ well being. My team narrowed down to study what the role of the Intent playing out in these low-income (intersections of geo-social class and gender) mothers’ lives.
From the micro symbolic-interaction perspective
The cyber phenomena [4] have been constantly created and re-created by different digital generations through their daily interactions. Hermeneutic phenomenology, ethnomethodology, virtual ethnography, and auto-ethnography are applicable research methods for this approach. A real life case to illustrate this perspective is that I am documenting my daily interactions with my four course delivery formats within current semester – online, hybrid, Live Meeting, and face to face with web-enhanced curriculum.
In short, my research agenda is based a framework integrating sociology and learning technologies to examine different scopes of digital reality shaped by multifaceted social forces.
Individually, We Are One Drop. Together, We Are An Ocean
My role-model within the LT field
All effective and conscientious scholars, practitioners, educators, policy makers and individuals with rational enthusiasm serve as my role model. A visionary role model, who is a resolute social change agent and leader, whose passion for learning, teaching and research, envisage educational technologies as a positive transformative mechanism that democratizes human societies. A rational and enthusiastic innovator who foresees the potentials of learning technologies that can lead to an authentic democratic society guides my enthusiasm and energy to the common good.
They are many of role models in our field, exemplifying tenacity and unwaveringness, so I learn and have the courage to select the road less travelled.
If Technology Is Not Used For Enhancing Humanity, Then For What?
The future of Learning Technologies
We are witnessing the accelerated effect of cybernetics which is all about humans and technology interacting to form the foundation of human infrastructure. In this cyber-structure, the high tech and high touch can be mutually complementary. Different digital generations are constructing ways of facilitating multi-generational and global communications.
The current Web 2.0 is such a transformative tool reshaping the educational experience. The line between space and time is rapidly becoming blurred and may cease to exist in the foreseeable future. The Learning in both “virtual” and “real” worlds simultaneously creates “inter-reality“ phenomenon that implies more options available to effectively merge teaching and learning in a seamless way.
I envision one day the “cutting edge” and “innovative” is no longer the nick name of business world or the industrial-military compounds. Those who can, teach – creatively and responsibly, are the catalysts to the systematic and systemic change of our society. Learning technologies will be the hardest science that requires robust digital engagers to take on studies that are under fast changing dynamics and contingent - the knowledge and skill required for effective practice tend to extremely sensitive to local conditions (Berliner, 2002). In such a challenging profession, only those stakeholders who tackle the challenge as a way of conscious living will reshape the future of our society.
I envision an omnipresent and mobile environment for all learners to create the -world-is-flat phenomenon. The current Web 2.0 encapsulates the idea of the proliferation of interconnectivity and interactivity of e-effects. It opens up sky-is-the-limit possibilities to transform learning to defy various digital divides in domestic and global domains.
The optimism and challenge are co-existent in this unprecedented epoch. Learning Technology is a gift as well as a social responsibility to the educators and relevant stakeholders. It is a golden opportunity to reach diverse learners to optimize the human capitals and shorten the digital gaps. It is time to redirect such powerful capacity of learning technologies into the humanitarian change.
It is a goal, an action, a commitment, and a responsibility!
[1] I expanded three extra current digital populations into the original categories: the “digital elite”, the digital native, the digital immigrant, and the “digital behind”, and the “digital deprived”.
[2] Technical colleges play a key role to bridge PK-12 and 15-16 educational settings. Yet, most people consider two year colleges being only a peripheral part (a step-child or child out of the educational wed-lock) of the collegiate system, or a “catch basin” for those few students unable or unwilling to enter “regular” colleges.
[3] Such as race/ethnicity, gender, social class, disability and various types of intersectional theories .
[4] e.g., formal and informal e-learning, e-community, e-communication, e-legality, and e-commerce…etc.) draft 9:00:00 PM by Li-chin(Crystal) Huang Delete
Edit #11 posting
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
My understanding and stance toward the three debates in the learning technologies field
My understanding and stance toward the three debates in the learning technologies field were summarized as follows:
1.The Media vs. Message (methods)
2. Learning sciences (LS) vs. Instructional sciences (IS): (Instruction systems, Instructional Design, Instructional Systems and Design)
3. Constructivism vs. Instructivism
1. For the first debate, Richard Clark published his controversial paper in 1983, titled “Reconsidering Media research on learning” which he cited numerous research from last 70 years (e.g., in particular, from Lumsdaine, Mielke) to assert that media do not have influence on learning and coined the well-known "truck and groceries' metaphor. He propounded that media function as delivery vehicle conveying the methods (instructional strategies). Later in 1991, Robert Kozma, “ 7” years (it does “need “ the time) responded with an article of learning with Media , and revisited in 1994 “Will media influence learning “ to open up the heated debate. Kozma posited the media and methods should not be separated. He proclaimed that via the activities provided by media’s symbol systems, nature/characteristics of media, and the cognitive structures where learners constructed their knowledge in the specific contexts. He used two media-based examples as illustrations, one was developed by White’s computer mediated Thinkertools and the other one was Cognition and Technology group of Vanderbilt University’s Japer Woodbury video series to strengthen his arguments.
There are mediator (Steve Ross) and reviewers (Ullmer, Reiser, Morrison, Shrock, Jonassen, Campbell and Davison (deceased) provided various valuable comments on this debate. Later Barney Dalgarno revisited this Media Effects debate in 1996 - at a time technology has dramatically changing the educational technology landscape. Hence the themes of the debate moved from "media to message", to "contents", "contexts" up to current “Interactivity” as the central concern.
My position on this debate:
To reflect on this debate, I would like to refer to a small episode in James Ellsworth’s Surviving Change- a Survey on Educational Change Models. In his book, there was a short passage about the field of human inquiry which is somewhat like the fabled blind men examining an elephant. After the probing the elephant, one of the pioneers excitedly exclaimed - the elephant is “over there”, and pointed the right directions for others to follow. Not until others stumbled with something else, did they find something fishy. Then they paused and compared one another’s “touching” notes. They found they all had different ideas and descriptions about what elephant was, and suspected others’ were wrong because they knew what they exactly felt ( for example, emic perspective) from the elephant. “The other” (for example, etic perspective) got to be wrong in their “methodology”. Not until another groups of new comers added to the extra info in new contexts, and analyzed why they were quarrelling, did they start the reconciliation and understand why and how conflicting thoughts happened and tried to get the whole picture of what the elephant looks like.Through all the predecessors’ diligence, endeavors, and articulation, I gradually find the image of the elephant. Thank to all of them.
Now coming back to the topic, I understand where Richard Clark and Robert Kozma are coming from- their academic background, and scholarly endeavors. In addition to the surfaced debate, there are ideological and intellectual struggle, territorial concerns, emotional charge, politics, as well as, if not the worse, the ambiguity of the buzzwords (just look at the journals referring to IT, ET, ID, IST, IDT, and IS used in our field) that subconsciously and unconsciously play out behind the academic screen. I respect both of them, in particular Clark’s constantly sharpening issues and problems in the field of education. The fast changing faces of information technology is reshaping many aspects of human life which makes Clark stance in this debate standing out. Nevertheless, Clark's emphasis on the importance of instruction and instructional strategies in contributing to the learning outcomes is significant.
As a matter of fact, the powerful modern media capacity and affordances (just think about the 400 gbs speed in network grids and web 2.0 as well as all the successful endeavors of GoNorth, Jason Project, BlueZone, 2nd Life interreality… and so on) are obvious achievements that have tremendous impact on business, industry, military, education and other important social institutions.
I hold the eclectic view on this issue similar to scholars such as Jonassen et al, Ross, and Reiser who claimed that instructional methods need to employ “powerful vehicles” to enhance the “nutrition of the groceries”. Media with its potent capacities and affordance as carriers can transform human learning capacity to reach the human improvement performance (HIP). Both “are adding two wings” for a tiger to run through the educational technology landscape.
2. As to the second debate between the LS and IS, it was much about the concerns of philosophy, ontology, and epistemology regarding the nature of knowledge and understanding that lay out the foundations of beliefs, values, assumptions, and practices of education and research in our field. Instructional sciences (as Merrill defined), has its long and old history in developing instructional strategies and educational artifacts through our early 20 century (Museum movement, audio-visual movement, programmed learning movement by the artifices of filmstrips, Lantern projectors, radio, records, television, video to 1991 the invention of Internet, and to current NGI-next generation Internet with the power of 400 Gbs speed of transistors on network grid).
LS emerged when multimedia was sweeping the educational technology landscape and the constructivism was on the rise. Under the constructivism as an epistemology, various pedagogical models prevail, such as discovery learning, situated learning, problem solving learning, inquiry learning, experiential learning, adventure learning, teaching community, community of practices gained much momentum. Both fields are all concerned the best ways to apply media’s affordances to yield quality learning. However, due to historical trajectory, epistemological emphasis, and research focus, these two fields seldom contact each other.
There are commonality and differences, described as follows:
In 2004, Educational technology journal presented a series of dialogue from both camps: Carr-Chellmem, Hoadley, B. Smith, Kolonder, Duffy and Merrill participated in this dialogue/debate. The commonality as well differences were articulated, the future of more dialogues and working together was expected. Brent Wilson points out (2006) his observations from the LS camp to Merrill (two both had a dialogue in Reiser and Dempsey’s 2006 book).
The emphasis of the LS camp are:
a. more focus on cognitive science;
b. pay attention to basis theory and research; and
c. more focus on developing prototype tools and on online environment.
Whereas, IDT tends to focus on
a. principles and practices;
b. research on non-psychological domain theory; and
c. focus more on practitioner, utilitarian, functional and product, goal driven research.
My position in this debate is that I realized both sides of the disciplines having their own historical and situational forces that shaped the ways they believe and practice . They share the common goals to enrich the learning environment to enhance human learning capacities via rich media technology. They both are based on cognitive science, though LS is more socio-cultural cognitively emphasized. The comments from Chris, Hoadley, Tom Duffy, Kolonder, Brian Smith, Sasha Barab and David Merrill are valid who pointed out that LS is more interdisciplinary by nature. It is more explorative, emphasizing mind in context, paying attention to big ideas (Kolonder)- theory construction and hypothesis generation and testing yet messier and scruffy motifs (Smith), as well as more in tune with computer science based artifacts developing. LS is more constructivistically oriented, and the research methods tend to be more qualitative; while IS more goal driven, prescriptive and confirmative by nature (cleaner, or “neats” by Smith). It focuses more on the utility and implementation, practices derived from theory.
There are several scholars cross the both fields, such as Jonassen, Hannifin and Hannifin, Duffy, and Land to relate and reshape the relationship between constructivism with instructivism. Some feel that each one of them add more tools to their toolbox (such as Winn), while other feel they are based on different core values about the nature of knowledge and understanding. Some scholars challenge the legitimacy of LS’s research and practice in the Instructional design field (such as Merrill).
I agree with several scholars such as Smith, Barab, Hoadley, that design-based research has the potential to bridge these two fields. From the Pasteur’s Quadrant perspective, I do feel these two disciplines could be complementary to each other for “applied and research’ sake" to enhance human improvement performance.
But I fully understand that it takes a huge academic pride, territorial issues, ideological and intellectual understanding, as welll as compromise to make it possible in the compartmentalized academia world.
3. To the third debate-
The effects of Constructivism vs. Instructivism issues relating to since Kuhn’s the Structure of Scientific Revolution, the paradigm shift, which has a great impact on many aspects of human world to rethink and reframe the taken for granted theories and practices.
Constructivism as a philosophy challenges people’s understanding of the nature of knowledge, belief and assumptions. Knowledge is contextualized, is situated, is negotiated, is experienced, and is understood via consensus or agreement. Mainly there is no absolute of truth existing, but constructed by human being’s engagements and interacting with their environments.
Compared to the aged Instructivism, Constructivism is still "young", yet has gained great momentum in the educational enterprise. Kischner, Sweller and Clark posited that the “intuitive” appealing of minimal guidance instructions was not efficient and effective. On one side of scholars who support the minimal guidance instruction are Bruner and Anthony from discovery learning model; Jonessan, Steffe, and Gale from the constructivism approach; Barrows and Tamblyn, Schimdt from the PBL model; Bout, Keogh, Kolb and Fry from the experiential learning theory; and Papert and Rutherford from the Inquiry learning. They proclaim that learners should be left to learn and construct their own understanding within the socio-cultural contexts that they were in.
Scholars from the direct guidance Instruction are Cronbach, Snow, Mayer, Lee Schulman, Klahr and Nigam who posited that direct guidance instruction prove to be more effective and efficiency evidenced from last half century’ s research and practices. In their recent studies Kirscher et al. explained why the minimal guidance instructions failed to enhance the learning effectiveness and efficiency. The failures tended to come from the problem-based, discovery learning, inquiry learning, and experiential learning under the constructivism banner. They argued that last half century research showed the direct guidance instruction proved to be superior in terms of effectiveness and efficiency to the minimal guidance learning. They critiqued the minimal guidance instruction ignoring the human knowledge of cognitive architectures, novice versus expert difference issues, and cognitive load theories.
Kirschner at al. (2006) also referred to Lee Schulman’s content expert, pedagogical expert and curriculum expert provided well grounded theories in curriculum and instruction development that guided many generational of practitioners, educators, researchers and many stakeholders in their respective fields of endeavors. They also pointed out the direct guidance instruction recede only when learners acquired sufficient prior knowledge to engage “internal” learning.
My position on this issue:
I appreciate “change is on the way”. Constructivism is sort of humanitarianism, which champions individual learner’s self efficacy and the potential of self-actualization when the appropriate learning environments ( such as theories based instructional methods and design/pedagogy, rich media technology, learning community and larger learning organization and institution, as well as other relevant contexts are in right time and right place). Individual learners as active participants can construct their own knowledge in an authentic context or community via available constructivist pedagogical models and practices.
I identify myself as an educator who is involving in learning, teaching, research and services to explore the possible media technology that enhances students’ learning in a holistic, effective and efficient ways. I also perceive myself as a potential change agent who can analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate the teaching and learning enterprise from the systematic/ecological and systemic perspectives.
From my last several year’s experiences as an educator, I prefer instructivism to echo Gagne’s statement. Gagne believed in human activities, as he said that some people did not need instructions to accomplish learning some activities, and some learning could be done with self-instructions. But with most purposeful and significant activities, such as vocational and technical learning that were accomplished under the thoughtful instructional setting.
Reflecting on Gagne’s theory and practice, contrasting with Jonassen et al’s propounding the constructivsm, my life long learning experiences as a student illuminate me to have the preference in the constructivism. Learning is intentional activities with intense endeavors interweaving mind, body, interaction in the socio-cultural contexts for thinking, feeling and behaving changes or potential changes.
Duffy and Ullmer once critiqued on research and researchers focusing on manageable projects tend to be insignificant (as Duffy said “Who cares” or the “boutique” projects for vita – Kolonder). Ullmer’s commented on that it was the messy, ambiguity big ideas that challenge the practitioner and researchers’ endeavors in the educational technological knowledge claims. There are wide spectrums for teaching, learning and research. The either-or motifs (such as will or will not; do or do not in the Clark vs. Kozam debate) as well the both-and (risky fee) subjects have been providing insight to our educational technology understanding. Design-research approach has the potential to differentiate and integrate various types of methods to generate grounded theory, testing hypothesis, and refine the learning environment from micro, meso, macro, exo and chrono systematic perspectives (Brenfennbrenner). For example, in Clark and Kozam’s debate from today’s research methodology capacities (quan vs. qual: various types of experiments, ethnography, authethnography, virtual ethnography, ethnomethodology, hermeneutic phenomenology, and other types of mixed methods) and technology affordances, it has the potential to identify myriad variables interact with the environment to combine the individual factors within the social context for better understanding how teaching and learning occur.
As to why I said that I prefer the instructivism as an educator and constructivism as a student, I explained as follows.
I taught at 4-year polytech university for 4 years, and now is going through my 6th years' teaching at a 2-year tech college. My teaching experiences remind me the powerful observations of Gagne (mentioned above). My current teaching setting is so called the pure non-elite schools. I taught an elite high school before and understand the concepts of prior knowledge, learning motivations scaffolded by the social class and the life chances supported by the cultural, social, and psychological capitals to comprise an academic success.
Just to tap the tip of the iceverg- my current learners’ profiles, 85-90% of our students are from low income households (the diverse student backgrouds ranging from university tranfers, high school drop-outs, first generation attending colleges, some having criminal records, displaced workers, single parents, returned grandparents seeking 2nd or 3rd careers, tot the disability students….etc) with Perkins or Pell financial aids. Life has been much harsher for them, and hopefully academic life could ease some of them. If comparing Kischner et al.’s medical school students’ minimal guidance instructions with my current students’ characteristics (motivation, gender, social class, past experiences which comprised their prior knowledge), I have to say the direct guided instruction not just only necessary, but in many cases, is a must. Mainly, Laissez Faire approach (as people called it) won’t “guarantee effective learning outcomes".
1.The Media vs. Message (methods)
2. Learning sciences (LS) vs. Instructional sciences (IS): (Instruction systems, Instructional Design, Instructional Systems and Design)
3. Constructivism vs. Instructivism
1. For the first debate, Richard Clark published his controversial paper in 1983, titled “Reconsidering Media research on learning” which he cited numerous research from last 70 years (e.g., in particular, from Lumsdaine, Mielke) to assert that media do not have influence on learning and coined the well-known "truck and groceries' metaphor. He propounded that media function as delivery vehicle conveying the methods (instructional strategies). Later in 1991, Robert Kozma, “ 7” years (it does “need “ the time) responded with an article of learning with Media , and revisited in 1994 “Will media influence learning “ to open up the heated debate. Kozma posited the media and methods should not be separated. He proclaimed that via the activities provided by media’s symbol systems, nature/characteristics of media, and the cognitive structures where learners constructed their knowledge in the specific contexts. He used two media-based examples as illustrations, one was developed by White’s computer mediated Thinkertools and the other one was Cognition and Technology group of Vanderbilt University’s Japer Woodbury video series to strengthen his arguments.
There are mediator (Steve Ross) and reviewers (Ullmer, Reiser, Morrison, Shrock, Jonassen, Campbell and Davison (deceased) provided various valuable comments on this debate. Later Barney Dalgarno revisited this Media Effects debate in 1996 - at a time technology has dramatically changing the educational technology landscape. Hence the themes of the debate moved from "media to message", to "contents", "contexts" up to current “Interactivity” as the central concern.
My position on this debate:
To reflect on this debate, I would like to refer to a small episode in James Ellsworth’s Surviving Change- a Survey on Educational Change Models. In his book, there was a short passage about the field of human inquiry which is somewhat like the fabled blind men examining an elephant. After the probing the elephant, one of the pioneers excitedly exclaimed - the elephant is “over there”, and pointed the right directions for others to follow. Not until others stumbled with something else, did they find something fishy. Then they paused and compared one another’s “touching” notes. They found they all had different ideas and descriptions about what elephant was, and suspected others’ were wrong because they knew what they exactly felt ( for example, emic perspective) from the elephant. “The other” (for example, etic perspective) got to be wrong in their “methodology”. Not until another groups of new comers added to the extra info in new contexts, and analyzed why they were quarrelling, did they start the reconciliation and understand why and how conflicting thoughts happened and tried to get the whole picture of what the elephant looks like.Through all the predecessors’ diligence, endeavors, and articulation, I gradually find the image of the elephant. Thank to all of them.
Now coming back to the topic, I understand where Richard Clark and Robert Kozma are coming from- their academic background, and scholarly endeavors. In addition to the surfaced debate, there are ideological and intellectual struggle, territorial concerns, emotional charge, politics, as well as, if not the worse, the ambiguity of the buzzwords (just look at the journals referring to IT, ET, ID, IST, IDT, and IS used in our field) that subconsciously and unconsciously play out behind the academic screen. I respect both of them, in particular Clark’s constantly sharpening issues and problems in the field of education. The fast changing faces of information technology is reshaping many aspects of human life which makes Clark stance in this debate standing out. Nevertheless, Clark's emphasis on the importance of instruction and instructional strategies in contributing to the learning outcomes is significant.
As a matter of fact, the powerful modern media capacity and affordances (just think about the 400 gbs speed in network grids and web 2.0 as well as all the successful endeavors of GoNorth, Jason Project, BlueZone, 2nd Life interreality… and so on) are obvious achievements that have tremendous impact on business, industry, military, education and other important social institutions.
I hold the eclectic view on this issue similar to scholars such as Jonassen et al, Ross, and Reiser who claimed that instructional methods need to employ “powerful vehicles” to enhance the “nutrition of the groceries”. Media with its potent capacities and affordance as carriers can transform human learning capacity to reach the human improvement performance (HIP). Both “are adding two wings” for a tiger to run through the educational technology landscape.
2. As to the second debate between the LS and IS, it was much about the concerns of philosophy, ontology, and epistemology regarding the nature of knowledge and understanding that lay out the foundations of beliefs, values, assumptions, and practices of education and research in our field. Instructional sciences (as Merrill defined), has its long and old history in developing instructional strategies and educational artifacts through our early 20 century (Museum movement, audio-visual movement, programmed learning movement by the artifices of filmstrips, Lantern projectors, radio, records, television, video to 1991 the invention of Internet, and to current NGI-next generation Internet with the power of 400 Gbs speed of transistors on network grid).
LS emerged when multimedia was sweeping the educational technology landscape and the constructivism was on the rise. Under the constructivism as an epistemology, various pedagogical models prevail, such as discovery learning, situated learning, problem solving learning, inquiry learning, experiential learning, adventure learning, teaching community, community of practices gained much momentum. Both fields are all concerned the best ways to apply media’s affordances to yield quality learning. However, due to historical trajectory, epistemological emphasis, and research focus, these two fields seldom contact each other.
There are commonality and differences, described as follows:
In 2004, Educational technology journal presented a series of dialogue from both camps: Carr-Chellmem, Hoadley, B. Smith, Kolonder, Duffy and Merrill participated in this dialogue/debate. The commonality as well differences were articulated, the future of more dialogues and working together was expected. Brent Wilson points out (2006) his observations from the LS camp to Merrill (two both had a dialogue in Reiser and Dempsey’s 2006 book).
The emphasis of the LS camp are:
a. more focus on cognitive science;
b. pay attention to basis theory and research; and
c. more focus on developing prototype tools and on online environment.
Whereas, IDT tends to focus on
a. principles and practices;
b. research on non-psychological domain theory; and
c. focus more on practitioner, utilitarian, functional and product, goal driven research.
My position in this debate is that I realized both sides of the disciplines having their own historical and situational forces that shaped the ways they believe and practice . They share the common goals to enrich the learning environment to enhance human learning capacities via rich media technology. They both are based on cognitive science, though LS is more socio-cultural cognitively emphasized. The comments from Chris, Hoadley, Tom Duffy, Kolonder, Brian Smith, Sasha Barab and David Merrill are valid who pointed out that LS is more interdisciplinary by nature. It is more explorative, emphasizing mind in context, paying attention to big ideas (Kolonder)- theory construction and hypothesis generation and testing yet messier and scruffy motifs (Smith), as well as more in tune with computer science based artifacts developing. LS is more constructivistically oriented, and the research methods tend to be more qualitative; while IS more goal driven, prescriptive and confirmative by nature (cleaner, or “neats” by Smith). It focuses more on the utility and implementation, practices derived from theory.
There are several scholars cross the both fields, such as Jonassen, Hannifin and Hannifin, Duffy, and Land to relate and reshape the relationship between constructivism with instructivism. Some feel that each one of them add more tools to their toolbox (such as Winn), while other feel they are based on different core values about the nature of knowledge and understanding. Some scholars challenge the legitimacy of LS’s research and practice in the Instructional design field (such as Merrill).
I agree with several scholars such as Smith, Barab, Hoadley, that design-based research has the potential to bridge these two fields. From the Pasteur’s Quadrant perspective, I do feel these two disciplines could be complementary to each other for “applied and research’ sake" to enhance human improvement performance.
But I fully understand that it takes a huge academic pride, territorial issues, ideological and intellectual understanding, as welll as compromise to make it possible in the compartmentalized academia world.
3. To the third debate-
The effects of Constructivism vs. Instructivism issues relating to since Kuhn’s the Structure of Scientific Revolution, the paradigm shift, which has a great impact on many aspects of human world to rethink and reframe the taken for granted theories and practices.
Constructivism as a philosophy challenges people’s understanding of the nature of knowledge, belief and assumptions. Knowledge is contextualized, is situated, is negotiated, is experienced, and is understood via consensus or agreement. Mainly there is no absolute of truth existing, but constructed by human being’s engagements and interacting with their environments.
Compared to the aged Instructivism, Constructivism is still "young", yet has gained great momentum in the educational enterprise. Kischner, Sweller and Clark posited that the “intuitive” appealing of minimal guidance instructions was not efficient and effective. On one side of scholars who support the minimal guidance instruction are Bruner and Anthony from discovery learning model; Jonessan, Steffe, and Gale from the constructivism approach; Barrows and Tamblyn, Schimdt from the PBL model; Bout, Keogh, Kolb and Fry from the experiential learning theory; and Papert and Rutherford from the Inquiry learning. They proclaim that learners should be left to learn and construct their own understanding within the socio-cultural contexts that they were in.
Scholars from the direct guidance Instruction are Cronbach, Snow, Mayer, Lee Schulman, Klahr and Nigam who posited that direct guidance instruction prove to be more effective and efficiency evidenced from last half century’ s research and practices. In their recent studies Kirscher et al. explained why the minimal guidance instructions failed to enhance the learning effectiveness and efficiency. The failures tended to come from the problem-based, discovery learning, inquiry learning, and experiential learning under the constructivism banner. They argued that last half century research showed the direct guidance instruction proved to be superior in terms of effectiveness and efficiency to the minimal guidance learning. They critiqued the minimal guidance instruction ignoring the human knowledge of cognitive architectures, novice versus expert difference issues, and cognitive load theories.
Kirschner at al. (2006) also referred to Lee Schulman’s content expert, pedagogical expert and curriculum expert provided well grounded theories in curriculum and instruction development that guided many generational of practitioners, educators, researchers and many stakeholders in their respective fields of endeavors. They also pointed out the direct guidance instruction recede only when learners acquired sufficient prior knowledge to engage “internal” learning.
My position on this issue:
I appreciate “change is on the way”. Constructivism is sort of humanitarianism, which champions individual learner’s self efficacy and the potential of self-actualization when the appropriate learning environments ( such as theories based instructional methods and design/pedagogy, rich media technology, learning community and larger learning organization and institution, as well as other relevant contexts are in right time and right place). Individual learners as active participants can construct their own knowledge in an authentic context or community via available constructivist pedagogical models and practices.
I identify myself as an educator who is involving in learning, teaching, research and services to explore the possible media technology that enhances students’ learning in a holistic, effective and efficient ways. I also perceive myself as a potential change agent who can analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate the teaching and learning enterprise from the systematic/ecological and systemic perspectives.
From my last several year’s experiences as an educator, I prefer instructivism to echo Gagne’s statement. Gagne believed in human activities, as he said that some people did not need instructions to accomplish learning some activities, and some learning could be done with self-instructions. But with most purposeful and significant activities, such as vocational and technical learning that were accomplished under the thoughtful instructional setting.
Reflecting on Gagne’s theory and practice, contrasting with Jonassen et al’s propounding the constructivsm, my life long learning experiences as a student illuminate me to have the preference in the constructivism. Learning is intentional activities with intense endeavors interweaving mind, body, interaction in the socio-cultural contexts for thinking, feeling and behaving changes or potential changes.
Duffy and Ullmer once critiqued on research and researchers focusing on manageable projects tend to be insignificant (as Duffy said “Who cares” or the “boutique” projects for vita – Kolonder). Ullmer’s commented on that it was the messy, ambiguity big ideas that challenge the practitioner and researchers’ endeavors in the educational technological knowledge claims. There are wide spectrums for teaching, learning and research. The either-or motifs (such as will or will not; do or do not in the Clark vs. Kozam debate) as well the both-and (risky fee) subjects have been providing insight to our educational technology understanding. Design-research approach has the potential to differentiate and integrate various types of methods to generate grounded theory, testing hypothesis, and refine the learning environment from micro, meso, macro, exo and chrono systematic perspectives (Brenfennbrenner). For example, in Clark and Kozam’s debate from today’s research methodology capacities (quan vs. qual: various types of experiments, ethnography, authethnography, virtual ethnography, ethnomethodology, hermeneutic phenomenology, and other types of mixed methods) and technology affordances, it has the potential to identify myriad variables interact with the environment to combine the individual factors within the social context for better understanding how teaching and learning occur.
As to why I said that I prefer the instructivism as an educator and constructivism as a student, I explained as follows.
I taught at 4-year polytech university for 4 years, and now is going through my 6th years' teaching at a 2-year tech college. My teaching experiences remind me the powerful observations of Gagne (mentioned above). My current teaching setting is so called the pure non-elite schools. I taught an elite high school before and understand the concepts of prior knowledge, learning motivations scaffolded by the social class and the life chances supported by the cultural, social, and psychological capitals to comprise an academic success.
Just to tap the tip of the iceverg- my current learners’ profiles, 85-90% of our students are from low income households (the diverse student backgrouds ranging from university tranfers, high school drop-outs, first generation attending colleges, some having criminal records, displaced workers, single parents, returned grandparents seeking 2nd or 3rd careers, tot the disability students….etc) with Perkins or Pell financial aids. Life has been much harsher for them, and hopefully academic life could ease some of them. If comparing Kischner et al.’s medical school students’ minimal guidance instructions with my current students’ characteristics (motivation, gender, social class, past experiences which comprised their prior knowledge), I have to say the direct guided instruction not just only necessary, but in many cases, is a must. Mainly, Laissez Faire approach (as people called it) won’t “guarantee effective learning outcomes".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)