The “Online Course Pedagogy and the Constructivist Learning Model” article by Shell and Janice (2013) have caught my eye as I am always on the lookout for any examples of how to integrate constructivist activities in an online environment. Many online instructors, especially novices, use basic activities that support constructivist learning model, mainly discussion boards to build social ties and reflect on the materials read. I hoped this article would give a sound advice and practical suggestions for specific online activities that support the constructivist model.
The article had a good start with a general outline of the benefits that online education offers. Shell and Janice (2013) argued: “that online courses are effective and support both faculty/student interaction as well as student/student interaction in ways that allow students to construct knowledge and learn to formulate the process for learning material.” Although this statement is somewhat general as an instructional designer, I agree that those opportunities indeed exist and even surpass similar opportunities in face-to-face courses. For example, peer-to-peer interaction in an online environment provided it is staged correctly, facilitates the participation of all students in the cohort, which face-to-face instruction is not really able to do, and there are always students who pass the course without any involvement in in-class discussions that require critical thinking.
After setting up the argument, the authors went into a little bit of history and an overview of online learning growth. There were no surprising statements there. Again, I agree that online learning is a practical alternative to face-to-face. As they compared face-to-face and online instruction, Shell and Janice (2013) later mention another major reason for the growth which is online learning provides students access to educational opportunities that they might not necessarily have access to otherwise (affordability and remote access). They also concluded that students receive greater instructor to student interaction as well as more considerable effort/amount in/of learning in the online course. However, their paper was focused only on asynchronous courses that provide very little or no opportunities for instructor/student interaction which does not fit in with their reasoning mentioned above in defense to online courses.
One of the major components of this paper was a comparative analysis of two theories — Objectivism and Constructivism — and how they relate to traditional and online instruction. I found it very interesting and mostly accurate. Shell and Janice’s primary theory is that face-to-face falls strictly under objectivism methodology whereas online education falls under constructivist methodology. However, they did not take into account face-to-face courses that even though relying heavily on lecture still manage to integrate peer-to-peer instruction, group work, and project-based learning. At the same time in online learning the complete absence of instructor/student interaction is one of the major contributors to low student retention and engagement, MOOCs being an excellent example (Ladyshewsky, 2013). This, in my opinion, weakens their argument as it created a bias by not providing a comprehensive overview of both methods of course delivery. However, they made good points in comparing Objectivist to Constructivist models. Objectivist model (an offshoot of Behaviorism theory) puts the instructor in control of the content and the learning process (“the sage on stage” method of communication). Although there is a pragmatic reason for employing such method of delivery in large classrooms which is more cost-effective it is not student-centered and heavily relies strictly on delivering course materials — lecture and textbooks, thus contributing to “passive” consumption of content (Shell & Janice, 2013). This is a very valid point and unfortunately the most popular method in Higher Education settings. It is how the majority of classes have been taught throughout my college career.
Enter the Constructivist method. Shell and Janice (2013) go on to describe that approach as student-centered and discovery-learning based. They make a very valid case for benefits to the learning process specifically in changing the role of the instructor as a guide and source of resources thus putting the student in the driving seat of their learning process. They further state that in the constructivist model it is necessary for students to have a level of learning comprehension that exceeds what is required for an objectivist-style course” (Shell & Janice, 2013). In other words, students require some degree of prior knowledge in order to make connections to new content. This was surprising to me as I never thought of that fact before, but it makes good sense as there has to be some degree of hypothesizing and researching experience and skills for knowledge transfer to take place. Thus, the authors’ conclusion states that that the constructivist model is more appropriate for students that already have an existing level of education (i.e., higher levels of education than objectivist model demands). They go on to summarize the comparison of both models in 5 categories: Main benefit, Locust of control, Education emphasis, communication, and Relationship to technology in a neat table. I liked this division as it does cover the main components of both theories. For example, Objectivism requires very little minimal use of technology in the classroom and often does not go beyond projecting a PowerPoint on the screen. Constructivism, on the other hand, needs to “assimilate new technologies for communication and knowledge discovery in the educational process” (Shell & Janice, 2013). I would add that in an online course the constructivism approach also requires a degree of digital and information literacy as students need to be able to be able to search the Internet and databases for valid and appropriate resources.
The needs and benefits of the Constructivism get evaluated further in “The Advantage of the Constructivist Model at the College Level” and cover main points that consist of changing the role of the instructor, learning discovery, an introduction of life learning skills, feedback, and construction of knowledge in social interactions. They recommend that in the constructivism-based course there should be a low number of students as all demand the guidance and individual attention of an instructor. This section expands their previous definitions of the constructivist approach to learning. Although not at all surprising to anyone who is already familiar with the concept, it is very informative especially to those who are new to this methodology.
One of the most useful sections of this paper is the one that deals specifically with online courses that promote constructivist learning. Although it reiterates the points already made it also specifies some negative points about that approach in online environments, namely the increased demand of instructor’s time in course design and rapid pace of technological change, meaning that the instructor has to be able to constantly keep up with technology advancements which again demands extra time and effort (Shell & Janice, 2013). One aspect they did not mention is faculty support (especially with new technologies) which increases the amount of needed human resources and is often overlooked by the administration as an additional cost to online education.
Their approach to the structure of online constructivist learning experience consists of 9 elements that should be present in such courses:
- Gaining attention,
- Informing learners of the objective,
- Stimulating recall of prior learning,
- Presenting the stimulus,
- Providing learning guidance,
- Eliciting performance,
- Enhancing performance.
These elements are based on the study of Gaine, Briggs and Wagner (1992) and I found them applicable to any course regardless of the methodology. The two elements that might be missing that pertain directly to the constructivist model are eliciting learners’ self-assessment (metacognitive activities) and providing opportunities for individualized learning as all students learn at a different pace and have different amounts of prior knowledge (Yadin & Or-Bach, 2010). As far as the further recommendation of how to design and structure an online course, Shell and Janice (2013) rely heavily on Quality Matters Rubric. Although, I find the QM rubric is excellent where course elements are concerned that cover different learning styles, strategies, and accessibility the rubric does not measure the instructor presence in the course as well as opportunities for students-to-students interactions. Those two elements directly apply to the student-centered approach of constructivist methodology. Another aspect of course design mentioned in this paper is the fact that online course has to be fully developed before it is deployed for delivery. As course gets developed instructors have to anticipate “how students will solve the assignments” (Shell & Janice, 2013). This leaves little room for improvisation and opportunities to correct misunderstandings. Two other elements that get mentioned is copyright issues, LMS, and multimedia in the form of screencasts of lectures. I found their advice on how to structure your online course and what materials to include is a bit general as they did not go into the example of actual activities and assessments that facilitate the constructivist learning approach. I thought at the very least the mention of discussion boards, assignments like video essays and various group projects would have been an excellent addition especially for those readers who are looking for a real solution for their course designs.
In conclusion, I found this paper informative on a general level which would be useful for anyone who is just starting with the application of the constructivist methodology to their online courses. I did find that the paper was a bit uneven regarding the scenarios that are possible in course design and the scope of their paper too narrow as it only looked at asynchronous courses with no instructor presence. However, as a proponent of online learning, it was great to have an affirmation that virtual classes have more opportunities for student interaction, engagement, and constructivist activities compared to fase-to-face courses.
References:
Ladyshewsky, Richard K. (2013) “Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Vol. 7: No. 1, Article 13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113
Gaine, R., Briggs, L. and Wagner, W. (1992) Principles of Instructional Design 4th Ed., HBJ College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
Schell, G., & Janicki, T. J. (2013). Online Course Pedagogy and the Constructivist Learning Model. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.ftumich.oai.quod.lib.umich.edu.11880084.0001.104 OP – Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems: Vol. 1, no. 1
Yadin, A., Or-Bach, R. (2010) The Importance of Emphasizing Individual Learning in the ‘Collaborative Learning Era,’ Journal of Information Systems Education, 21, 2, 185-194.