To theorize or not to theorize...

Theories play an important role as they help us summarize research findings and provide the reasons for the way things happen (Harasim, 2017; Ormrod, 1999).  Additionally, theories serve as an aid in designing better learning environments “that facilitate human learning to the greatest possible degree” (Ormrod, 1999, p. 5).  For these reasons and in view of the advent of digital technologies, the way these impacted the traditional classroom context and the shifts such technologies brought about, the consideration of existing learning theories as well as novel ones was to be expected.  I would think this to be a necessity so as to, and I borrow Harasim’s (2017, p. 2) words here yet again, “significantly reflect or address this new reality”.

Photo by Kier... in Sight on Unsplash

Let me here briefly delineate some of the major learning theories that inform teaching practice.  Behaviourism focuses on a stimulus-response connection as started off by Pavlov’s classical conditioning, followed by Skinner’s operant conditioning which brought to the fore the power of positive and negative reinforcement.  In the latter we therefore “learn behaviours that are followed by certain consequences” (Ormrod, 1999, p. 16).  Cognitivism addresses the mental processes involved in learning, leading to the consideration of “how people perceive, interpret, remember, and otherwise think about the environmental events they experience” (ibid, p. 145) or as per Harasim’s (2017, p. 12) synthesis, “[c]ognitivism sought to understand what was inside the black box of the mind”.  Constructivism is explained by Harasim (ibid, p. 12), as providing an explanation of “how learners construct meaning” and as per Ormrod’s (1999, p. 171) definition, learning is portrayed “more as constructing knowledge from the information one receives rather than directly receiving that information from the outside world”.  Collaborativism (Online Collaborative Learning Theory) considers the internet as facilitating and encouraging collaboration and knowledge building (Picciano, 2017), taking into consideration learning as being “a process of connecting with nodes of information and that learning resides not only in the human learner but also in non-human appliances”(Harasim, 2017, p. 14). 

It is evident that different learning theories presuppose different epistemologies, different ways of knowing, respectively foregrounding truth as either objective or subjective.  Depending on the kind of epistemology, this will bear on the pedagogies adopted.  Harasim (ibid, p. 14) clearly illustrates behaviourism and cognitivism as presupposing an objective reality, giving way to didactic approaches, and constructivism and collaborativism as presupposing a subjective reality.  In the latter the role of the teacher is decentred, a figure that is not traditionally imparting knowledge but facilitating and inducting knowledge-building in a community of learners, enabling networked learning.   Since digital technologies have enhanced the possibilities of networked learning, it becomes clear that a consideration of the diverse learning theories gains utmost relevance in an attempt to understand how learning occurs in networked learning and possibly to improve the design of such a learning environment.  Picciano (2017, p. 186) for instance seeks to depict an integrated model for online learning which takes on board the various learning theories but does admit that “[t]he multimodal model…is essentially a pedagogical model and, therefore, may have greater appeal to instructional designers, faculty, and others who focus on learning objectives.”  On the other hand, let us not assume that digital technologies inherently propagate a collaborativist approach to learning.  At the end of the day, it all boils down to the way such digital technologies are used in an educational context.  We are reminded here of Bayne et al.’s (2020, p. 9) description of “the flat [my emphasis] spaces of videoconferencing environments, [as replicating] classroom practice in their foregrounding of content and teacher over student participation”. 

With such an idea in mind and despite the move from a teacher-centred approach to a learner-centred approach, it would be inappropriate to belittle, demote or completely strike off the figure of the educator in such educational contexts.  Dr. Cutajar (2019) makes reference to such discourse in her paper about teaching using digital technologies, highlighting the importance that both transmissive and participative approaches play in pedagogy.  Delineating 5 categories of academics in their usage of digital technologies for teaching, it becomes evident that such technologies are utilised to different degrees and for diverse purposes, whether it is for the dissemination of material or for creating a collaborative learning environment which aims at promoting critical thinking and higher order skills on the part of learners.  The latter is reminiscent of a deeper approach to learning as described by Trigwell and Prosser (2020) whereby the students seek for a better comprehension of the material at hand.  I believe the role of the lecturer remains key in an educational context, endorsing Bayne et. al’s (2020, p. 28) statement that:

“[d]igital education should not be complicit in replacing teaching – understood as a rich set of practices, often emergent with new technologies, but always highly professionalised – with reductionist notions of facilitation that place teacher subject experience and critical professional judgement in the background of educational practice”

In a digital age, the teacher might have moved down from the podium, and as Bates (2019) suggests, there may be other better ways of doing education than via the traditional lecture mode.  Biesta (2013) calls for a redefinition of teaching and with reference to “the gift of teaching”, conveys the idea that such a gift is what an educator is apt to do when their “teachings…provide insights about ourselves and our ways of doing and being” (p. 457).

Learning theories with their related epistemologies can thus come together as best deemed by the educator to tackle the subject at hand alongside the cohort of learners involved.  Just as no one theory is exhaustive - as Ormrod (1999, p. 7) states, “[i]t is probably more helpful to think of theories in terms of their usefulness than in terms of their correctness” and in agreement with Harasim’s (2017, p. 9) words that “[t]heories change and improve over time” – so are transmissive and participative approaches to teaching complementary to each other, rather than exclusive.  As Cutajar (2019) aptly states, "[o]ne does not exclude the other, and one is not in contrast to the other”.

With the speed at which technological advances take place and considering how these have already greatly impacted teaching and learning contexts, theories may well be a work in progress but nonetheless significant in throwing light on the ways we could best do education.  The role of the educator remains paramount in parallel and in connection with that of the learner if the aim of education is to be that of a more socially just and inclusive world.  As Biesta (2013) states, we need teachers who “do not shy away from difficult questions and inconvenient truths” (p. 459) and learners who are “open to the gift of teaching…who can welcome the unwelcome” (p. 460).  Perhaps networked learning can attempt to achieve that.

Block 4: Learning theories and learning approaches

References:

Bates, A.W. (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age.  Second Edition. Tony Bates Associates Ltd.  https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press.

Biesta, G. (2013). Receiving the Gift of Teaching: From ‘Learning From’ to ‘Being Taught By’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(5), 449-461.

Cutajar, M. (2019). Teaching Using Digital Technologies: Transmission or Participation? Education Science, 9(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030226

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Second Edition. Routledge.

Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human Learning. Third Edition. Merrill Prentice Hall.

Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225

Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring University Teaching and Learning: Experience and Context. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50830-2_1

 

 

Networked Learning - A Meeting of Minds

I borrowed the phrase in my title from Harasim (2017, p. 25) as she metaphorically depicts the idea of computer networking that was set in motion with the creation of Arpanet and eventually becoming a reality thanks to the Internet.  In truth, this beautiful expression belongs to contract law which refers to “when a valid offer is made by one party and accepted by another” (Greene, 2022) but is also defined by the Oxford online dictionary (n.d.) as “a close understanding between people with similar ideas”.  With the development of the internet and digital technologies, the traditional classroom context no longer remained the sole modality for education to take place, eventually leading to the reality of networked learning, whereby a meeting of minds could take place differently.

Photo by Mimi Thian on Unsplash

Harasim (2017, pp. 29-30) distinguishes amongst different modes of online learning, ranging from the adjunct mode to the fully online mode.  However, as Fawns (2019, cited in NLEC, 2020, p. 313) clarifies in discussing the awkwardness of such a generic term, “it can obscure the embodied and physically situated nature of learning”.  It is thus that the term networked learning goes beyond the notion of learning as simply mediated by online technologies but focuses more holistically on the intermingling of three significant factors: the “human/inter-personal relationships”, “technology” and “collaborative engagement in valued activity” (NLEC, 2020, p. 314).  

Such intertwining of human and non-human elements has been taken up by sociomaterial approaches to learning.  The focus on the interactions deployed amongst all the ‘things’, including “students, teachers, learning activities and spaces, knowledge representations such as texts, pedagogy, curriculum content, and so forth” (Fenwick, 2015) has decentred the human being, who is therefore no longer the only subject.  Let me consider for a moment the MONHE program I am reading for and the ways it is playing out with multiple interactions amongst lecturers, learners, university administrative staff, the VLE, chats, forums, blogs, online resources provided by lecturers and learners such as journal articles or slide decks, further texts cross-referenced within other texts and hyperlinks, online repositories as well as textbooks in print which we might access via our personal or university libraries.  The interactions are multitudinous in this particular networked learning context, considering that the former are “gatherings of heterogenous natural, technical and cognitive elements” (Fenwick, 2015).  The beauty of such sociomaterial approaches is that they lean towards Heidegger’s idea of being-in-the-world.  The latter is aptly delineated by Terry Eagleton (1996, p. 54) as a world wherein “[w]e emerge as subjects from inside a reality which we can never fully objectify, which encompasses both ‘subject’ and ‘object’, which is inexhaustible in its meanings and which constitutes us quite as much as we constitute it”.  A meeting of minds with connotations of equality!

Networked learning in this sense becomes an exercise in humility, whereby in our interactions with other human (as well as non-human) elements, we gain an increased awareness of the limits of our knowledge(s) but also, the increased possibilities brought about by such learning being collaborative and mutual.  As described by Bates (2019) in citing Wenger (2000), “more important is the generation of newer or deeper levels of knowledge through the sum of the group activity”.  Traditional classroom hierarchies in networked learning are broken down both physically and cognitively, no longer experiencing education via a know-it-all god-like teacher on podium with passive students at their seat.  As stated by McConnell et al. (2012, cited in Cutajar, 2018, p. 79):

“In networked learning (NL) practice…there is a significant shift from the prevalent classroom-based lecture…Teachers are assumed to take a less prominent position permitting students to experience learning through active participation in cooperative and collaborative activities with others.”  

This becomes especially possible in Higher Education where students (assuming here more maturity and in possession of a greater portfolio of experiences and knowledge) can usually contribute to the shared knowledge of the cohort, leading to what Dr. Maria Cutajar (2018, p. 91) refers to as “NL participants…as teachers and learners for each other”. 

The Networked Learning Editorial Collective (2020, p. 316) critique the customary definition of NL as being “restricted to formal education”.  In reality, NL can include less formal contexts which bring together people with a shared interest, such as for instance communities of practice (Wenger, 2004).  Digital technologies have definitely enabled communities of practice even further and may promote an education that is far from being transmissive but more focused on knowledge-sharing “between more or less equal participants” (Bates, 2019).  A meeting of minds would yet again be an apt description for CoPs.

If NL is taking apart the traditional hierarchies and creating a transformative education reminiscent of Freire’s (2016) call against a banking education, or as Connell (2019, p. 49) describes it, “empty-vessel pedagogy”, is NL all good?  As with everything, nothing comes without its challenges.  Paola Tubaro (2016) in fact questions whether platforms are “the new face of hierarchy”, and if that is so, novel hierarchies, albeit different ones, may still prevail.  Moreover, the body of knowledge relating to NL may as yet be one-sided rather than multi-faceted to be a fairer representation of the world.  As claimed by NLEC (2020, p. 317), “[c]ontributions and theory from disadvantaged spaces and the Global South are few and far between”. 

In the face of such challenges or deficits, I do not believe we should forfeit such a positive and hopeful idea as that provided by NL.  In NL, a meeting of minds can gain added meaning to those given earlier in the introduction.  For the sake of a more socially just world, where there is a lack in the knowledge, we should seek to be more inclusive, not least to aim for a true internationalisation of HE, for a wider and more equitable meeting of minds.  

Block 3: Sociomateriality of learning networks and networked learning

References:

Bates, A.W. (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age.  Second Edition. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/

Connell, R. (2019). The Good University: What universities actually do and why it’s time for radical change. Zed Books Ltd.

Cutajar, M. (2018). Variation in Students’ Perceptions of Others for Learning. In: Bonderup Dohn, N., Cranmer, S., Sime, JA., de Laat, M., Ryberg, T. (eds) Networked Learning. Research in Networked Learning. (pp. 79 – 94) Springer, Cham. https://doi-org.ejournals.um.edu.mt/10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_5.

Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Second Edition. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Fenwick, T. (2015). Sociomateriality and Learning: a critical approach. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.), The Sage handbook of learning. Sage publishers.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.

Greene, M. R. (2022, July 29). insurance. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurance.

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Routledge.

Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC). (2020). Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8

Oxford Learners’ Dictionaries. (n.d.) meeting of minds. In Oxford Learners’ Dictionaries. Retrieved from meeting noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Tubaro, P. (2016) Hierarchy, market or network? The disruptive world of the digital platform. Data Big and Small. https://databigandsmall.com/2016/04/07/hierarchy-market-or-network-the-disruptive-world-ofthe-digital-platform/.

Wenger, E. (2004). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. [Electronic version]. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/11736