Chapter 3 Methodology
3.6 Interpreting the Data
3.6.3 Ally (2004) Constructivist Learning Theory
Constructivist Learning Theory, the third presented in the examination of online learning theory by Ally (2004), contends that learners learn best in two circumstances. First when they can contextualize what they learn for immediate application, and second, when they learn to acquire personal meaning. The components Ally associated with Constructivist learning are presented in Table 3.10 below and were used to examine data for evidence of an online learning environment based on Constructivist Learning Theory.
Table 3.10 Components of a Constructivist Learning Environment Components of a Constructivist Environment
Ally (2004)
Observed Features
Strategies should make learning an active process. Collaboration in online learning activities
Learners need opportunities to construct their own knowledge. Group creation of databases and WIKIs
An environment that encourages collaborative learning should be promoted.
Reports and files shared via email, intranets mobile phones Other features associated with Constructivist Learning Theory which relate directly to the Internet are listed in Table 3.11 below and were also used to examine the data for evidence of behaviours associated with Constructivist Learning Theory. These characteristics were identified from Ally (2004) and other studies discussed in the Review of Literature, Chapter 2 as advantages of the Internet and online learning.
Table 3.11 Advantages Associated with Constructivist Learning Theory Advantages Associated with Constructivist Learning Theory
Ally (2004)
Observed Features
Access to up-to-date and relevant learning materials. Open to the Internet Communication with experts in the field while working on the job. Reference to technical
specifications Feedback and directing learners to appropriate materials to achieve
learning outcomes.
Advice via chats, forums and emails
The researcher notes that these advantages match predictions found in the literature of social change and consequential educational change made earlier by Tofler (1970) and Drucker (1995). Both commentators envisaged a society based on knowledge and educational systems structured around the concept of learning as an ongoing process.
Two other prominent learning theories were also used to assist with the coding of data. First is ‘multiple intelligences’ discussed in Frames of Mind by Gardner (1983). He provided a list of learning styles, that he described as basic information processing mechanisms. These are shown in Table 3.12.
Table 3.12 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles
Gardner (1983)
Observed Features
Linguistic Text based
Logical-mathematical Numerical
Spatial-picture smart Images and diagrams Body-kinesthetic Dance and gymnastics
Musical Rhythms and beats
Interpersonal-people smart Collaborations and discussions Intrapersonal-self smart Reflections on own learning/decisions Natural-nature Exploration and experience
The second is ‘radical constructivism’ summarised by von Glasersfeld (2000) who provided the descriptors shown in Table 3.13. They were used to record evidence of knowledge constructed by individuals related to subjective experience. The notion of knowledge being both constructed and subjective is of interest in this study of online learning because the Internet has the capacity to provide students with the option of selecting their own learning environments and instructional modes.
Table 3.13 Learner-Constructed Learning Environments Learner-Constructed Learning Environments
von Glasersfeld’s (2000)
Observed Features
Knowledge constructed by learners Databases and WIKIs
Learners selecting their learning environment Face-to-face or online or virtual options provided in online activities
Learners selecting their instructional modes Video and audio options provided in online activities
In summary, the three components Ally associates with learning environments designed according to Constructivist Learning Theory and Gardner’s (1983) Multiple Intelligences Learning Styles are presented in Tables 3.11 and 3.12 respectively. They provide the main frameworks for analyzing examples of online instructional material in the data. The characteristics of von Glasersfeld’s ‘Learner-Constructed’ environment, Table 3.13, were considered during the interpretation of findings in Cross-case Findings, Chapter 5 and Conclusions, Chapter 6.
3.6.4 Internet Based Learning: Research Findings
This section outlines findings of selected studies of the online environment under the broad headings of transactional distance, interaction, control and social context. It sets out the processes by which particular elements were identified and utilised to code the collected data.
3.6.4.1 Transactional Distance
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004) report on an analysis of Web Based Instruction (WBI) where the instructional material was examined to provide insights into the details of two major components of WBI: structure and dialogue. In their analysis, discussed in the Review of Literature, Chapter 2, they reclassified structure as infrastructure and identified three contributing elements. These are listed as: content expandability; content adaptability and visual layout. These are presented in Table 3.14 below, and were used to interpret the data collected.
Table 3.14 Elements of Infrastructure Infrastructure Elements
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004)
Observed Features
Content expandability Open ended online learning tasks
Content adaptability Online tasks applicable to a variety of situations
Visual Layout Consistent heading hierarchy and coherent navigational links The elements of dialogue were determined to include: academic interaction, collaborative interaction and interpersonal interaction. These are presented in Table 3.15 below, and were used to interpret the data collected.
Table 3.15 Dialogue Elements of Infrastructure Dialogue Elements
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004)
Observed Features
Academic interaction Assessment driven communication via chats, forums and emails Collaborative interaction Project based discussions via chats, forums and emails
Interpersonal interaction Informal discussion via chats, forums and emails
Two additional elements, learner collaboration and learner autonomy, were considered under the headings Interaction and Control. These are two of the four macro-factors identified as important developments in the context of web-based instruction derived from Moore's initial theory of transactional distance Wiley (2004), discussed in Review of Literature, Chapter 2. Briefly stated, Moore contends that in the instructor-learner relationship, greater distance requires greater control. The notion was mainly associated with distance education and was examined in this research to determine to what extent it applied to oncampus interaction. The researcher initially assumed that students studying oncampus had more opportunity than distance education students to interact with instructors where and when they wished. The components of learner collaboration (Interaction) and learner autonomy (Control) were used to interpret the data collected. The components of each are presented in the next section.
3.6.4.2 Interaction
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han’s (2004) report identifies four components of interaction as learner-instructor, learner-learner, learner-content and learner-interface. These are presented in Table 3.16 and were used to interpret the data collected.
Table 3.16 Components of Interaction Components of
Interaction Hill, Wiley, Nelson
and Han’s (1994)
Features Observed in Learning Interactions
learner-instructor Interaction is central to the feedback mechanisms and provides motivation when it is needed.
learner-learner The exchange of ideas amongst students is promoted.
learner-content The learning process is defined and includes the ‘plan’ for providing resources and activities
learner-interface The learner’s ability to use the hardware and software delivering the course is defined.
3.6.4.3 Control
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004) argue that control is the most important feature of effective online learning. Their report discussed in the Review of Literature, Chapter 2, separates control into internal and external. They argue that successful online courses will address internal and external control as a single component, and help students to understand that success is internal. Components of control are listed in Table 3.17 and were used to interpret the data collected.
Table 3.17 Components of Control Components of
Control Hill, Wiley, Nelson
and Han’s (1994)
Features Observed in the Learning Environment
internal A belief success is a result of personal accomplishment and effort is promoted
external A belief success is based on factors outside students’ control is promoted external to internal Students are helped to understand success is a result of internal control
3.6.4.4 Social Context
The Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004) report also examines the total environment or social context in which students operate. The social context in an online environment is
characterised by Hill et al as made up of complex elements. These are summarised as a shared virtual space that incorporates all the positive features learners associate with responses from real people. Features Hill et al expected to be observed in such spaces are listed in Table 3.18. They were used to interpret the data collected.
Table 3.18 Social Context in Internet-Enabled Learning Elements of Social Context in Internet-Enabled Learning
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004)
Observed Features
Virtual space that has the positive attributes of a physical learning space
Games and simulated learning environment with real time response Hearing from a real person Real time communications via
chat/microphone and video camera Interactive sound and video built into Internet-based learning
experiences
Simulations with audio and video/camera response capabilities Feeling that others share the learning space and are a part of
a learning collaboration
Forums and chat rooms are part of learning activities
3.6.4.5 Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004)Building Theory from Practice
This section uses ‘findings of interest’ from a selection of studies discussed in the Review of Literature Chapter 2 that examined the design of online and oncampus courses. Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han’s (2004) report identified four areas of interest: course redesign; assignments; assessment and evaluation of student satisfaction and scalability. They found that course redesign was largely concerned with scalability, in particular, duplicating “face-to-face class experience online” (p. 436). They also recorded teachers’ concerns about plagiarism and automated feedback/scoring. Themes identified in Hill et al’s research, which pertain to teachers’ roles in creating online learning environments, are presented in Table 3.19. These themes were used to interpret the data.
Table 3.19 Faculty Responsibility, Discussion (Online) and Course Requirements Student Satisfaction Themes
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han (2004)
Observed Features
Adult Learners want Prompt and specific feedback. Criticism by phone call not online Adult Learners do not want Automated feedback
Learners like Learning from other learners. Open and honest dialogue.
Learners do not like Fellow classmates who do not keep up to date with work requirements Discussion/complaints about non-course topics
Learners want Guidelines and course requirements from faculty. To immediately apply knowledge learned to life situations.
Learners do not like URLs that do not work. Purchasing books and software not fully utilized by the instructor.
The categories that emerged from Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han’s (2004) research, together with Gredler’s (2004) discussion of Vygotsky’s (1978) notion that learners need to be conscious of their own thinking in order to develop advanced cognitive and self-regulatory capabilities, were helpful when considering the development of pedagogy associated with online learning environments. In particular was Gredler’s argument that learning situated in virtual and simulated environments should include an explanation the context of the
simulation and the learning objective. These concur with elements Hill et al associate with the
category ‘Focus on Thinking’ and are presented in Table 3.20. They were used to interpret the data.
Table 3.20 Focus on Thinking Features to Encourage Focus on Thinking
Hill, Wiley, Nelson and Han’s (2004)
Observed Features
Required interaction/collaboration Learners are required to use interactive and collaborative technologies data entry
Statement of the desired learning outcome Learners are aware of and reiterate a specific learning expectation Explanation of the simulation and its ‘associated context’. Simulations are annotated and
activities preceded by quiz of context.