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".