Categories: Communication Design, Technology, Theory & Rhetoric
Summary:
Woo and Reeves aimed to elevate and encourage the use of social constructivism learning theory. Their well-researched, excellent article reviews the various theories used on distance education, the definition of distance education, and how these theories and definitions impact and alter the beliefs and actions of practitioners and researchers. In their own words, they "recommend re-conceptualizing online interaction in terms of meaningful learning based on social constructivism learning theory" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 23).
Citation-worthy:
"Interaction is an essential ingredient in any learning process. However, every interaction does not lead to increased learning. When interaction has a direct influence on learners' intellectual growth, we can say the interaction is meaningful. The precise meaning of meaningful interaction is strongly related to the learning theories underlying the development of particular learning environments" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 15).
"One of the key components of good pedagogy, regardless of whether technology is involved, is interaction. Interaction is an essential ingredient of any learning environment (face-to-face classroom-based, synchronous/asynchronous online education, or blended models)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
On the definition of online education:
"The nature of interaction in various forms of learning environments has been defined in a variety of ways, based upon the participants' level of involvement in a specific learning opportunity such as a university course or a corporate training program and the objects of interaction such as other participants or content materials. The nature of interaction is also dependent upon the contexts in which interaction occurs, in a face-to-face situation or at a distance. Moore's (1989) classic definition of interaction within distance education is based upon a communication-based framework, defining the sender and receiver of three types of interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner–learner. Also within the context of distance education, Wagner (1994) defined interaction as “the reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions” (p.8). Such interactions are said to occur when these two objects and events reciprocally influence each other. Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) insisted that these and other past discussions of interaction overlooked the fact that all interaction is mediated via a medium in technology-based learning situations. On the basis of their research, Hillman et al. added a fourth kind of interaction, learner-interface interaction to Moore's three types of interaction. More controversially, Sutton (2001) defined a fifth type of interaction, vicarious interaction, which “takes place when a student actively observes and processes both sides of a direct interaction between two other students or between another student and the instructor” (p. 227). Whether such “self-talking” or internal discourse interaction should be categorized with other forms of more directly observable interaction is debatable. Northrup (2001) proposed five interaction purposes: to interact with content, to collaborate, to converse, to help monitor and regulate learning (intrapersonal interaction), and to support performance. Taking into account the previous definitions, Muirhead and Juwah (2004) described interaction as “a dialogue or discourse or event between two or more participants and objects which occurs synchronously and/or asynchronously mediated by response or feedback and interfaced by technology” (p.13). According to them, interaction serves a wide range of functions in the learning process: promoting active learning, enabling effective facilitation, allowing learner input in the learning process, enabling the development of higher order knowledge and abilities, and enhancing the quality and standards of the learning experiences" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
"Depending on how learning is defined, the image of meaningful interaction is changed (Deubel, 2003; Hannafin, 1989; Vrasidas, 2000). That is, the meaning of meaningful interaction is strongly related to the learning theories underlying the development of particular learning environments. For example, in the behaviorist learning theory called operant conditioning (Skinner, 1954); learning is defined as a change in observable behavior" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
"Since the 1990's, constructivism has exerted a strong influence on education in general and the Instructional Technology field in particular. Although there are many variants of constructivist learning theory (Fosnot, 1996), they share a perspective that learning is defined as meaning making. In other words, according to constructivists, learning requires the personal interpretation of phenomenon such as the construction of a mental model representing complex phenomenon. Therefore, when interactions in a learning environment are designed to enhance meaning making, then those interactions are meaningful within the principles of the constructivist learning theory and within context of interactive learning environments that have been designed according to the theory of constructivism (Gergen, 1999).
"Constructivism has provided different forms of theoretical bases for effective online learning environments as well as for face-to-face classroom learning environments (Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning. It describes both what 'knowing' is and how one 'comes to know.' (Fosnot, 2005, p. ix). Constructivism rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences (Driscoll, 2000). Knowledge is a function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her experiences (Jonassen et al., 1995). That is, knowledge does not consist of objective truths to be transmitted via media, but formative, developmental, and constructed explanations by humans engaged in meaning-making process (Driscoll, 2000; Fosnot, 1996, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000). Clearly, learning from the constructivist perspective is a human meaning-making venture (Driscoll, 2000; Fosnot, 1996, 2005; Gergen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Constructivism was greatly influenced by the later work of Jean Piaget and the socio-historical work of Lev Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996; Gergen, 1999). Piaget believed that in a cognitive sense, the human is also a developing organism just like in a physical and biological sense" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Vygotsky, on the other hand, was more focused on the effects of social interaction, language, and culture on learning (Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000). Vygotsky emphasized dialogue. He argued that all cognitive functions originate in social interactions and that learning is not simply the assimilation and accommodation of new knowledge by learners; it is the process by which learners are integrated into a knowledge community (Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky was interested ‘not only in the role of inner speech on the learning of concepts but also on the role of the adult and the learners’ peers as they conversed, questioned, explained, and negotiated meaning’ (Fosnot, 1996, p, 20). In his perspective, meaning making is the process of sharing various perspectives and experiences in communities of practice (Fosnot, 1996; Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, learning is derived from rich conversation with other people who have similar or different perspectives based on their own life experiences (Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995). We call this theory social constructivism" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Authentic tasks have become the center of attention for some researchers focused on employing social constructivist as a theoretical foundation for Web-based learning (Herrington, Reeves, Oliver, & Woo, 2004; Lourdusamy, Khine, & Sipusic, 2002). Using authentic tasks is derived from the social constructivist principle of locating learning in realistic contexts (Stage et al., 1998). The use of authentic tasks is also advocated to foster learning transfer in the belief that the collaboration among students helps them learn not only the concepts under discussion but also how these concepts are used in the workplace or in life (Jaworski, 1994). To accomplish an authentic task, students must interact through sharing what they are thinking, relating their ideas to past experiences, collaborating with their peers, actively constructing their own meaning, and incorporating the diverse perspectives of others (Barr & Tagg, 1995)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 20).
"Among these efforts, the most representative and comprehensive one may be the one made by Reeves, Herrington, and Oliver (2002) to identify guidelines for educational applications of authentic activities within online learning environments. They identified the following ten main characteristics of authentic activities:
1. Authentic activities have real-world relevance.
2. Authentic activities are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity.
3. Authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time.
4. Authentic activities provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources.
5. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate.
6. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect.
7. Authentic activities can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain-specific outcomes.
8. Authentic activities are seamlessly integrated with assessment.
9. Authentic activities create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else.
10. Authentic activities allow competing solutions and diversity of outcomes" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 21).
"How can we really know whether interaction has affected learning through the process of intersubjectivity, especially in Web-based learning environments? Does the use of authentic tasks guarantee meaningful interaction? Certainly not. ... Therefore, to increase meaningful interaction and to design and apply better interaction activities in Web-based learning environments, the interaction processes need to be analyzed and understood in terms of learning" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 22).
"Meaningful interaction should include responding, negotiating internally and socially, arguing against points, adding to evolving ideas, and offering alternative perspectives with one another while solving some authentic tasks (Jonassen et al., 1995; Lapadat, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 23).
