O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a navegar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nosso Contrato do Usuário e nossa Política de Privacidade.
O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a utilizar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nossa Política de Privacidade e nosso Contrato do Usuário para obter mais detalhes.
Three generations of distance education pedagogies
Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogies Terry Anderson & Jon Dron (International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning) Presented by Elizabeth Akore
Presentation Outline• Introduction• The three(3)generations of DE Pedagogies• Cognitive, Social & Teaching presence in the different teaching models.• Strengths & weaknesses of each pedagogy• Future Generations of Distance education• Discussion• Conclusion• Summary of Distance Education pedagogies
Introduction• This paper defines & examines 3 generations of distance education pedagogy. Unlike earlier classifications on distance education based on the technology used, this analysis focuses on the pedagogy that defines the learning experience encapsulated in the learning design.• “The three generations of cognitive – behaviourist, social constructivist, & connectivist pedagogy are examined, using the familiar community of inquiry model with its focus on social, cognitive, & teaching presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).• DE like all other technical – social developments, is historically constituted in the thinking & behavioural patterns of those who developed, tested, & implemented what were once novel systems.
The 3 Generations of DE Pedagogy COGNITIVE - BEHAVIOURIST Pedagogy of DE SOCIAL - CONSTRUCTIVIST Pedagogy of DE CONNECTIVIST Pedagogy of DE• We will look at Cognitive presence, social presence & teaching presence in and their strengths and weaknesses.
1. COGNITIVE –BEHAVIOURIST Pedagogy of DE• CB pedagogies focus on the way in which learning was predominantly defined, practiced & researched in the later half of the 20th century.• Behavioural learning theory begins with notions of learning which are generally defined as new behaviours or changes in behaviours that are acquired as the result of an individual’s response to stimuli.• Note in this definition the focus on the individual & the necessity for measuring actual behaviours & not attitudes or capacities.For example, Gagne’s (1965) events of instruction proceed through linear &structured phases, including to
Gagne’s (1965) events of instruction1. Gain learners’ attention2. Inform learners of objectives3. Stimulate recall of previous information4. Present stimulus material5. Provide learning guidance6. Elicit performance7. Provide feed back8. Assess performance9. Enhance transfer opportunities
’ Cont• Behaviourist notions have been esp. attractive for use in training programs as the learning outcomes associated with training are usu. clearly measured & demonstrated behaviourally. From the behaviourist tradition emerged the cognitive revolution , beginning in the late 1950s (Miller, 2003).• Cognitive pedagogy arose partially in response to a growing need to account for motivation, attitudes and mental barriers that may only be associated or demonstrated through observable behaviours.• Although learning was still conceived of as an individual process, its study expanded from an exclusive focus on behaviour to changes in knowledge or capacity that are stored & recalled in individual memory (Mayer,2001)
2. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST Pedagogy of DE• SCP developed in conjunction with the development of 2 way communication technologies.• SCP acknowledges the social nature of K+ & of its creation in the minds of individual learners.• Teachers do not merely transmit K+ to be passively consumed by learners; rather, each learner constructs means by which new K+ is both created & integrated with existing K+• Although there are many types of social constructivism (Kanuka & Anderson,1999), all models have more or less common themes, including the importance of
Common Themes new K+ as building upon the foundation of previous learning Context is shaping learners’ K+ development Language & other social tools in constructing knowledge Metacognition & evaluation as a means to develop learners’ capacity to assess their own learning, Learning environment as learner centred& stressing the importance of multiple perspectives. K+ needing to be subject to social discussion, validation, & application in real world contexts (Honebein, 1996, Jonassen, 1991; Kanuka & Anderson, 1999).
3. CONNECTIVIST Pedagogy of DE• The 3rd generation of DE pedagogy emerged recently. Canadians George Siemens (2005a&b, 2007) & Steven Downes (2007)have written defining connectivist papers , arguing that learning is the process of building networks of information, contacts & resources that are applied to real problems.• Connectivism was developed in the information age of a networked era ( Castells, 1996) & assumes access to networked technologies.• Connectivism also assumes that that information is plentiful & that the learner’s role is not to memorise or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find & apply K+ when & where is needed.• Connectivism assumes that much mental processing & problem solving can & should be off-loaded to machines, leading to Siemens’ (2005) claim that “learning may reside in non-human appliance.’• Connectivist models explicitly rely on networked connections between people, digital artifacts, & content which would have been inconceivable as forms of DL were the world Wide Web (www) not available to mediate the process. Thus as we have seen in the case of the earlier generation of DL technology has played a major role in determining the potential pedagogies that may be employed.
Cognitive, Social & Teaching presence in the different models COGNITIVE PRESENCE SOCIAL PRESENCE TEACHING PRESENCEC CP is the means & context thru What most defined the CB In its earliest asO which learners construct & generation of DE was an almost correspondence education, theG confirm new K+. In CB models total absence of social presence. tr. had only their words onNI of learning, CP is created Learning was thought of as an printed text to convey theirT through structured processes in individual process, & thus it presence. Later technologiesI which learners’ interest is made little difference if one was allowed voice (audio) & bodyV stimulated, informed by both reading a book, watching a language of the tr. (video) to beE general & specific cases of movie, or interacting with a transmitted thru TV, film, & overriding principles & then computer – assisted learning multimedia- based educationalB tested & reinforced for the program by oneself or in the productions. Despite theEH acquisition of this K+. CB company of other learners. This general absence of the tr. inA models of DEP stress the focus on individualised learning this CB pedagogies, one cannotV importance of using an resulted in very high levels of std. discount the teaching presenceI Instructional systems design freedom ( space & pace) & fitted that potentially could beO model where the learning nicely with technologies of print developed thru one-to-oneU objectives are clearly identified packages, mass media ( radio & written correspondence,R and stated & exist apart from TV), & postal correspondence telephone conversation, orIS the learner & the context of interaction occasional face-to –faceT study. interaction between tr. & std.
COGNITIVE PRESENCE `` SOCIAL PRESENCE TEACHING PRESENCES Cognitive presence assumes that Social interaction is a defining Kanuka &Anderson (1999)O learners are actively engaged, & feature of constructivist argued that inC interaction with peers is perhaps pedagogies. At a distance, this constructivist modes ofI the most cost-effective way to interaction is always mediated, but DE, “ the educator is aA support cognitive presence (not nonetheless, it is considered to be guide, helper, & partnerL requiring the high costs of a critical component of quality where the content is simulations, computer –assisted distance education (Garrison, secondary to the learningC learning programming, or media 1997). More recent developments process; the source of K+O production).Cognitive presence, for in immersive technologies, such as lies primarily inN constructivists also exploits the Second Life, allow gestures, experiences.” Given thisS human capacity for role modelling costumes, voice intonation, & critical role, one can seeT (Bandura, 1977), imitation other forms of body language that the importance ofR (Warnick, 2008), and dialogic may provide enhancements to teaching presence withinU inquiry Wegerif, 2007).Thus, social presence beyond those constructivist models.C Garrison (1997) & others argue experienced face-to-face ( Teaching presenceT that CBL with rich std. – std. & Std.- McKerlick & Anderson, 2007). It is extends beyondI Tr. interaction constituted a new , likely, as learners become more facilitation of learning toV “post –industrialist era” of DE. skilled in using ever-present choosing & constructingI However, the focus on human mobile communications & educational interventionsS interactions placed limits on embedded technologies, that & to providing directT accessibility & produced more barriers associated with a lack of instruction when required. costly models of DE (Annand, social presence will be further 1999). reduced.
COGNITIVE PRESENCE SOCIAL PRESENCE TEACHING PRESENCEC Connectivist cognitive presence begins CP stresses the As in constructivistO with the assumption that learners have development of social learning, teachingN access to powerful networks, are literate & presence & social capital presence is created byN confident enough to exploit these through the creation & the building of learningE networks in completing learning tasks. sustenance of networks paths & by design &C Connectivist learning happens best in of past & present learners support of interactions,T network contexts, as opposed to individual & of those with K+ such that learners makeI or group contexts (Dron & Anderson, relevant to the leaning connections with existingV 2007). In network contexts, members goals. The activities of & new K+ resources.I participate as they define real learning learners are reflected in Unlike earlier pedagogies,S needs, filter these for relevance, & their contribution to the teacher is not solelyT contribute in order to hone their K+ wikis, Twitter, threaded responsible for defining , creation & retrieval skills. In the process, conferences, Voice generating or assigningP they develop networks of their own & threads & other network content. Rather, learnersE increase their developing social capital tools. The activities, & teacher collaborate toD (Davies, 2003). Cognitive presence is choices & artifacts left by create the content ofA enriched by emergent interactions on previous users are mined study, & in the process re-G networks, in which others are able to through network create that content forO observe, comment upon, & contribute to analytics & presented as future use by others. AG connectivist learning. Connectivist guideposts & paths to K+ final stress to teaching isY cognitive presence is enhanced by the that new users can follow the challenge presented focus on reflection & distribution of these (Dron, 2006). by rapidly changing reflections in blogs, twitter posts & technologies. multimedia webcasts.
Strengths & Weaknesses of Cognitive –Behaviourist Models.• To summarize, CB models defined the 1st generation of individualized DE. They maximized access & student freedom, & were capable of scaling to very large numbers at significantly lower costs than traditional edu., as demonstrated by the successful mega universities(Daniel, 1996). However, these advantages were accompanied by the very significant reductions in teaching, social presence & formal models of cognitive presence, reductions that have come under serious challenge since the latter decades of the 20th century. While appropriate when learning objectives are very clear, CB models avoid dealing with the full richness & complexity of humans learning to be, as opposed to learning to do (Vaill, 1996).
Strengths & Weakness of constructivist ModelsConstructivist DE pedagogies moved distance learning beyond thenarrow type of K+ transmission that could be encapsulated easily inmedia though to the use of human communication-based learning.Thus, Garrison & others ague that the rich student – student &teacher to student interaction could be viewed as a “post- industrialistea” of DE. However, Annand views the focus on human interaction asplacing limits on accessibility & producing more costly models of DE.Ironically, constructivist models of DE began to share many of theaffordances & liabilities of campus –based education, with potentialfor teacher domination, passive lecture delivery, & restrictions ongeographic & temporal access.
Strengths & Weaknesses of Connectivist Approaches• Connectivist approaches used in a formal course setting , where top- down structure is imposed over the bottom –up emergent connections of the network, often heavily rely on the popular net work leaders. Such people occupy highly connected nodes in their networks & can encourage a sufficiently large population to engage so that there is continued activity even when the vast majority does not engage regularly. Even then, learners often yearn for a more controlled environment (Mackness, Mak & Williams,2010)• While a great many speculative & theoretical papers have been written on the potential of connectivism, there is a clear need for a richer means of establishing both networked & personal learning environments that offer control when needed in both pedagogical & organisational terms. The crowd can be a source of wisdom (Surowiecki, 2005) but can equally be a source of stupidity (Carr, 2010), with processes like preferential attachment that are as capable of leading to the Matthew Principle (where the rich get richer & the poor get poorer).
Future Generations of DE Pedagogy?• We have seen how different models of teaching & learning have evolved when the technological affordances & climate were right for them. Cognitive –behaviourist pedagogical models arose in a technological environment that constrained communication to the pre-web, one –one & one-many modes; social -constructivism flourished in a Web 1.0, many-many technological context & connectivism is at least partially a product of a networked, Web 2.0 world. It is tempting to speculate what the next generation will bring. Some see Web 3.0 as being the semantic Web, while others include mobility, augmented reality, & location awareness in the mix (Hendler, 2009).• All of these are likely to be important but may not be sufficient to bring about a change of the sorts we have seen in earlier generations of networked systems because the nature & mode of communication, though more refined, will not change much with these emerging technologies. It is already becoming clear that connectivist approaches must become more intelligent in enabling people to connect to & discover sources of K+. Part of that intelligence will come from data mining & analytics, but part will come from the crowd itself.
Discussion points• Many educators pride themselves to being pedagogically (as opposed to technology)driven in their teaching and learning designs. However, as McLuhan first argued, technologies also influence & define the usage, in this case the pedagogy instantiated in the learning & instructional design. What did he mean by that?• In an attempt to define a middle ground between either technological or pedagogical determinism, the two are being intertwined in a dance; the technology sets the beat & creates music, while the pedagogy defines the moves (Dron & Anderson, 2009). What did they mean by that?• They further went on by stating that “to some extent our pedagogical processes may themselves be viewed as technologies move (Dron & Anderson, 2009).• The availability of technologies to support different models of learning strongly influences what kinds of models can be developed; if there were no means of two-way communication, what would it be like?
Conclusion• Distance education has evolved through many technologies and at least three generations of pedagogy, as described in this paper. No single generation has provided all the answers, and each has built on foundations provided by its predecessors rather than replacing the earlier prototype (Ireland, 2007).• For each mode of engagement, different types of knowledge, learning, and contexts must be applied and demand that distance educators and students be skilled and informed to select the best mix(es) of both pedagogy and technology. Although the prime actors in all three generations remain the same—teacher, student, and content—the development of relationships among these three increases from the critical role of student–student interaction in constructivism to the student–content interrelationship celebrated in connectivist pedagogies, with their focus on persistent networks and user-generated content.• The Web sites, books, tutorial materials, videos, and so on, from which a learner may learn, all work more or less effectively according to how well they enable the learner to gain knowledge. Even when learning relies on entirely social interactions, the various parties involved may communicate knowledge more or less effectively. It is clear that whether the learner is at the centre or part of a learning community or learning network, learning effectiveness can be greatly enhanced by applying, at a detailed level, an understanding of how people can learn more effectively: Cognitivist, behaviourist, constructivist, and connectivist theories each play an important role.
Table 1 Summary of Distance Education PedagogiesGeneration of Technology Learning Learner Content Evaluation Teacher Scalabilitydistance activities granularity granularity roleeducationpedagogyCognitive– Mass media: Read and Individual Fine: Recall Content Highbehaviourism Print, TV, watch scripted and creator, radio, one-to- designed sage on one from the the stage communication ground upConstructivism Conferencing Discuss, Group Medium: Synthesize: Discussion Medium (audio, video, create, scaffolded essays leader, and Web), construct and guide on many-to-many arranged, the side communication Teacher guidedConnectivism Web 2.0: Explore, Network Coarse: Artifact Critical Low Social connect, mainly at creation friend, co - networks, create, object and traveller aggregation & and person recommender evaluate level, self systems created