Paradigms.pdf

8/14/2019 Paradigms.pdf

1/30

International Jl. of Educational Telecommunications (2001) 7(3), 293-322

Paradigms and Frames for R&D in Distance Education:Toward Collaborative Electronic Learning

WALTER HEINECKECurry School of Education

University of Virginia405 Emmet Street

Charlottesville, VA 22903 [email protected]

KARA DAWSON2403 Norman Hall

College of EducationUniversity of Florida

Gainesville, FL 3261 [email protected]

JERRY WILLISCollege of Education

Iowa State University N108 Lagomarcino Hall

Ames, IA 50011-3192 USA [email protected]

This article investigates the relationship between paradigmsof teaching and learning and models of distance education.The underlying premise of this article is that fundamental

beliefs about the nature of reality (ontology), the nature of knowledge (epistemology), and the nature of how one comesto know (methodology) influences beliefs about teaching

and learning and ultimately about models of distance educa-tion. The basic paradigms of post-positivism, interpretivism,and critical theory are reviewed. The relationship of these

belief systems to distance education models is considered.


2/30

294 Heinecke, Dawson, and Willis

Specifically, the influence these belief systems have on as-

sumptions about education, planning, and efficiency and oninstructional strategies are reviewed. Examples of distanceeducation models that have developed from the three para-digms are also provided. The article proposes paradigm flexi-

bility, leading to new opportunities for distance education.

Distance education (DE) has a very long history. Moore and Kearsley(1996) cite Isaac Pitmans shorthand courses offered by mail in 1840 as oneof the first manifestations of distance education. As is often the case today,a new innovation was the impetus for Pitmans distance education effort. In1840 it was the inauguration of the penny post, an integrated nationwidemail service that delivered letters anywhere in the kingdom for a penny. To-day the increasing power and versatility of affordable innovative electroniccommunication systemsfrom satellites to the World Wide Web (WWWor Web)is one of the driving forces behind the rapid expansion of dis-tance education.

A cursory review of DEs history suggests that it rarely influences thedevelopment of basic technology or social policy. The influence is general-ly in the other direction. Emerging technologies and innovations make cer-tain types of DE possible and more affordable. Using certain fundamental

beliefs and assumptions, those working in DE generally adapt and modifyexisting technologies, which were created for other purposes. This was trueof the penny post, and it is true of the Web.

This heavy and one-way influence of new technologies on DE is both acontinuing aspect of innovation and a source of danger that requires effortto avoid. In many ways it is like the proverbial 2,000-pound elephant. If you live in a compound with the elephant, you have no choice but to pay at-tention to it; however, the elephant may be so large that it overshadows oth-er important aspects of the compound. One important aspect of DE that wefeel is sometimes overshadowed by the 2,000-pound technological elephantis paradigms of learning and teaching . These fundamental beliefs influencehow new technologies will be used in distance education.

One example of how fundamental beliefs affect the use of technologycan be seen with the development of multimedia. When presented with newmultimedia technology, a behavioral psychologist may use it to create vast-ly improved tutorial programs or drills. The same multimedia technologymight be used by a neo-Piagetian psychologist to create a virtual world inwhich students can explore and build concepts about a topic in much thesame way they can explore geometry concepts using a microworld such as


3/30

295Paradigms and Frames for R&D in Distance Education

Logo. The important point is that the technology does not define what can

be done with it in an educational setting. It is just one component in the dis-cussion. Fundamental questions that are often associated with philosophyand psychological theories of learning must also be included in the discussion.In education, psychology, and distance education, there are a number of para-digms that guide practice today. The influence of those paradigms on practiceis, unfortunately, often hidden or obscured by the 2,000-pound elephant.

In this article, three popular paradigms and their influence on the de-sign and implementation of distance education are explored. Specifically,the theories of learning and instructional strategies that may be implement-

ed depending upon the paradigm lens through which DE is viewed are con-sidered.

PARADIGMS AND PRACTICE

Thomas Kuhns (1996) sociological theory of change in science makesheavy use of the term paradigm. In describing Kuhns theory of scientificrevolutions, Chalmers (1982) defined a paradigm as made up of the gener-

al theoretical assumptions and laws and techniques for their application thatthe members of a particular scientific community adopt (p. 90). Accordingto Chalmers, a paradigm has several components:

! Explicitly stated laws and theoretical assumptions. Standard ways of applying the fundamental laws to a variety of types of situations.

! Instrumentation and instrumental techniques necessary for bringing thelaws of the paradigm to bear on the real world.

! General metaphysical principles that guide works within the paradigm.! General methodological prescriptions about how to conduct work within

the paradigm (p. 91).

A paradigm is a comprehensive belief system that guides research and practice in a field. In education today, there are several competing paradigms.The exact number and the names of the active paradigms vary from author toauthor, but one generally accepted list includes three paradigms (Smith, 1989,1993): (a) postpositivism, (b) critical theory, and (c) interpretivism.

Some have called online or distance education a revolutionary para-

digm in itself. However, how technology is used in distance education de- pends on the fundamental beliefs of distance educators. Since DE technology


4/30


does not have explicitly stated laws and theoretical assumptions or gen-

eral metaphysical principles that guide work within the paradigm, it is notvery useful to discuss the technology of DE as a new paradigm.

POPULAR PARADIGMS

The paradigm debate has been a hot topic in education and the socialsciences for well over a decade. It has major implications both for whatconstitutes research and what constitutes good practice. The postpositivist

(or quantitative or empirical) paradigm is pitted against quite different paradigms, such as interpretivism (or qualitative or constructivist). Itwould be difficult to discuss the range of research methods, or teachingstrategies in use today without discussing the competing paradigms thatspawn these methods.

Each of the paradigms discussed takes a distinct position on three gen-eral issues: (a) the nature of reality (ontology), (b) the nature of knowledge(epistemology), and (c) the nature of how one comes to know (methodolo-gy). This last general issue has been broken down into three related prob-

lems: the reasons or justifications for what we do, preferred approaches toteaching/learning, and the relationship of research to practice. These issues aresimilar to the three used by Guba (1990) to distinguish research paradigms.

Postpositivism

Table 1 summarizes the positions taken by the post-positivist. (Note:Postpositivism is a kinder, gentler version of logical positivism, an ex-

treme form of empiricism that flourished in the first half of the twentiethcentury.)

According to postpositivists, the purpose of teaching or research is tolearn universal truths about our world. Postpositivism is based on the as-sumption that the use of the scientific method will control subjectivity, andhelp us get closer and closer to truth, which becomes the content of learningexperiences. The researcher is thus in a superior position to the practitioner

because researchers have mastered a special or privileged way of know-inghere the scientific method.


5/30


Table 1

Postpositivist Positions

Postpositivism

Ontology: The nature of reality Realist , reality is external to humanmind

Epistemology: The nature of knowledge Objectivism: Correspondence theory,there are universal, discoverable facts

Methodology Scientific method is only source of

knowledge

Justifying what we do Find/teach universals

Preferred methods Validated methods, universal object-ives, teacher centered assessment

Relationship of research to practice Separate activities, research guidespractice

Most distance educators who work in this tradition invest considerableeffort in identifying the right content to teach. They emphasize teacher-centered or teacher-controlled strategies, and they rely on objective mea-sures given to all students in a class to judge whether students have learnedor not.

Critical Theory

Critical theory explores a wide range of power relationships in humanculture, including those involving gender, race, and ethnicity. Table 2 com-

pares the positions taken by the postpositivist and critical theorist related toontology, epistemology, and methodology. This table appears to suggestthat critical theory only shares one common foundation with postpositivism,a belief in an external, knowable, reality. There is actually even less agree-ment than is implied in the table. The form that reality takes is quite differ-ent in the two paradigms. A critical theorist prefers an education that makeslearners more aware of their situation in life so they can become more ableand willing to take control of what happens to them. Instead of supportingthe way things are, critical theorists tend to emphasize, the way thingsshould be.

Because the heart of critical theory is ideological rather than method-ological, the research from this paradigm is not limited to a narrow range of


6/30


methods. Critical theory is less focused on a methodology than it is on the

reason for doing research. In fact, Guba (1990) feels the phrase ideological-ly oriented inquiry is a much better name for this approach than critical theory

because it emphasizes the focus on ideology and values as guides to research.The overall purposes of research and practice in education from a criti-

cal perspective are empowerment and emancipation. They also influencethe relationship between research and practice. Research and practice can

be the same thing to critical theorists. As Smith (1993) put it,

the regulative ideal of critical social and educational inquiry is to in-

tegrate theory and practice in a way that not only makes transparent to people the contradictions and distortions of their social and education-al lives, but also inspires them to empower and emancipate them-selves. Critical theorists and critical inquirers have embraced theMarxian injunction that the idea is not merely to interpret or under-stand the world, it is to change it (p. 92).

Table 2

Differences Between Postpositivist and Critical Paradigms on FiveMajor Issues

Postpositvism Critical Theory

Ontology: The nature of reality Realist , reality is external Realist, external toto human mind mind

Epistemology: Objectivism: Correspon- Subjective objectivismThe nature of knowledge dence theory, there are

universal, discoverable facts

Methodology Scientific method is Subjective inquiry,only source of knowledge based on ideology and

values

Justifying what we do Find/teach universals Empowering, emanci-pate

Preferred methods Validated methods, Uncover local instancesuniversal objectives, of universal power teacher centered relationships andassessment empower the op-

pressed

Relationship of research Separate activities, Integrated, researchto practice research guides practice guides practice


7/30


Interpretivism/Constructivism

The final paradigm to be explored is interpretivism. Interpretivism isusually the term of choice when discussing philosophy of science issues,and constructivism is usually the term used when discussing theories of learning and instructional models. As Table 3 shows, it differs from thedominant paradigm, postpositivism, on all five of the major points.

Table 3Differences Between Postpositivist, Critical and Interpretive Paradigms on

Five Major Issues

Postpositivism Critical Theory Interpretivism

Ontology Realist , reality is Realist, external Social constructionexternal to human to mindmind

Epistemology Objectivism: Subjective SubjectivistCorrespondence objectivismtheory, there are

universal, discoverablefacts

Methodology Scientific method Subjective inquiry, Collaborativeis only source of based on ideologyknowledge and values

Justifying what Find/teach universals Empowering, Understandwe do emancipate

Preferred methods Validated methods, Uncover local Authentic,universal objectives, instances collaborativeteacher centered of universal power assessment relationships and

empower theoppressed

Relationship of Separate activities, Integrated, research Both guide andresearch to research guides critiques/changes informspractice practice practice practice


8/30


9/30


The Postpositivist Course

Content might be preselected by an expert (often by the selection of a textbook), and teaching techniques would likely focus on teacher-centered activi-ties, such as lectures and reading assignments (with some discussion andopportunities for students to ask questions when they do not understand the

preselected content). Students would probably work independently of eachother, and the primary means of assessment would most likely be an objec-tive test.

The Critical Course

Most of the content in this course might also be preselected, but the empha-sis would be on the history of oppressed groups. Instead of textbooks thatsynthesize and generalize, the critical instructor might select material that ismuch closer to the group experiences, such as colonial era women andAmerican Indians during the westward expansion. The teaching techniquesin this course might be a combination of lectures, discussions, and action

projects. Students are likely to work independently some of the time and ingroups at other times. Assessment would likely involve an activity, such asa paper that demonstrates the students understanding of the ideology ex-

pressed in the readings as well as the facts covered by the course. If feasi- ble, the students may also participate in some sort of local action project re-lated to the course.

The Interpretive Course

While this course might have some common core material, much of whatthe student learns will be selected by the student. There is less likely to be alarge textbook, or even a collection of resources required of all students.The instructor would help students select issues of interest to them for study, and help students learn to see those issues from multiple perspectives(e.g., views on child labor from industrialists, poor immigrant families, andsocial reformers). Most of the work would be carried out in small collabora-

tive groups that tackle issues of importance to them. The instructors rolewould focus on supporting discussion among students, mentoring groups


10/30


and individuals who are working on projects, and working as a learner as

well as a teacher. Assessment would likely be based on products created byindividuals and groups. Portfolios, papers, and reports are three types of materials students and groups might create. The idea here is that the stu-dents and the instructor decide what they will create, and how they will beassessed.

These three versions of the same course are, admittedly, drawn sharply.You can find many courses that cross the lines drawn between paradigms.While the preceding three descriptions are fictitious, there are examples of real DE courses that come close to fitting the three paradigm models.

American History 102, a DE course developed by Schultz, Tishler,and Hamilton (1997) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison illustratesa postpositivist approach. The focus of the course is on a series of televi-sion (or videotaped) lectures by the instructor. Assignments involving read-ings come mostly from a selected textbook. Grades are assigned based on amidterm and final exam, and an essay mutually agreed upon by the studentand the teaching assistant.

Dr. Katherine Arenss course at the University of Texas at Austin , His-tory: Telling Stories of Culture, takes a decidedly different approach. It in-

troduces methods for cultural study, a framework for viewing history andculture based on critical theory. The course includes:

Theories of historiography (primarily French and German) since the19th century. Twentieth-century cultural studies (especially the histo-ry of everyday life and other new historic impulses). Students create

projects specifying what is at stake in terms of research strategies andmethods, intellectual power, and institutional support in interdiscipli-nary work in the humanities today (Arens, 1997).

Arens is interested in helping students understand multiple perspec-tives, not simply a dominant perspective, and apply them to a real worldtask. Her methods of assessment include precis on theory readings, class

presentations, personal reflections, and a final project.Dr. Thomas Costas of Clinch Valley Community College implements

elements of the interpretivist paradigm in his course entitled, Local Historyand Appalachian Studies . In this course, Dr. Costas collaborates with mem-

bers of the Virginia Center for Digital History (located at the University of Virginia) by way of interactive technologies. Students in this class learnabout methods and sources used to gather local historical materials and in-formation. With assistance from the Virginia Center for Digital History, hisstudents use the skills they have learned to work as historians to compile


11/30


digital archives of local materials and information related to Appalachian

studies. Through this process, students must construct their own meaningsof the information and materials they have gathered, and must present their interpretations for others to view by way of the Web.

As just exemplified, paradigms do make a difference in the contenttaught, and in the approach taken to teaching and learning in distance edu-cation. Defining distance education, through paradigm beliefs, prescribeswhat constitutes good practice (Richter, Maxwell, & McCain, 1995). Garri-son (1993) asserted there are two fundamental paradigms, postpositivisticand interpretivist, influencing distance education today. These two para-

digms are philosophically divergent in their sets of assumptions regardingthe purpose and viability of distance education (Garrison, 1993, p. 9). As

previously stated, a third paradigm, the critical paradigm, also affects think-ing about distance education. In the following sections how paradigm be-liefs influence distance education practices are discussed.

POST-POSITIVISM AND DISTANCE EDUCATION PRACTICES

Traditional principles of educational technology were developed basedon assumptions grounded in the postpositivistic paradigm (Garrison, 1993;Harris, 1991). According to Garrison (1993),

Distance education is still predominantly a private form of learning based on prepackaged course materials produced to achieve economiesof scale. The primary purpose of this industrialized model is to instructas many students as possible regardless of time and location (p.12).

This traditional model of distance education assumes that educationconsists of a body of knowledge that can be efficiently delivered over dis-tances opening up access to wider audiences. This prepackaged, prescribedobjectives approach reflects a behavioral orientation to teaching and learn-ing (Garrison, 1993). Under these assumptions the teaching of higher order,complex, and ill-structured concepts is ignored in favor of concepts that focuson knowledge that can be fragmented and delivered in a sequential manner.

Experience, knowledge, instructional techniques, and technology aretreated as separate entities in this model. The emphasis is on prediction and

control of the educational environment. Distance education in this paradigmis designed to maximize learner independence and minimize interaction.Giving students the freedom to study when and where they want to is a pri-mary goal.


12/30


Assumptions about Education

The postpositivistic model of distance education embodies a set of as-sumptions about the fundamental purposes of education. According to Har-ris (1991) the Open University reflected this traditional assumption abouteducation,

An implicit view of education is involved hereeducation is being seenas a matter of providing students with efficiently produced packages of correspondence materials and broadcasts. The educational purpose towhich those packages were to be put is seen as secondary (Harris,1991, pp. 47-48).

This passage illustrates the image of distance education as the deliveryof instruction, and is illustrative of the traditional distance education para-digm. Moore and Kearsley (1996) restate Otto Peterss industrial model of distance education, which reflects traditional views on distance education:

His thesis is that distance education allows industrial methods to beapplied to the design and delivery of instruction, but that unless indus-trial methods are used, distance education will not be optimally suc-cessful. The principles of industrial production should be applied alsoto the analysis of distance education. The industrial techniques include

planning, division of labor, mass production, automation, standardiza-tion, and quality control. Through the use of industrial techniques wecan use expensive communication media and distribute courses tomany students, while economies of scale justify the costs involved. If standardized procedures are followed in the production and adminis-tration of such courses, the outcomes are reliable and effective andlearning can be ensured (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, pp.198-199).

Thus learning is achieved by following prescribed, systematic methods thatcan be replicated.

Assumptions about Planning

Those operating from the traditional paradigm plan distance educationcourses from a rational, linear, systems, or systematic instructional designapproach. The emphasis is on careful preplanning prior to the selection of the appropriate technology. Distance education courses are planned withattention to detail often exceeding that required in traditional face-to-face


13/30


teaching (Willis, 1993, p. 5). Under this paradigm, teachers sometimes

have a more limited role in designing distance education courses than theydo in planning traditional classroom instruction. Courses are often designed

by a group of experts representing different areas such as content experts,technology experts, and so forth. Distance education planning also requiresa rigorous and systematic approach more often found in the corporate envi-ronment (Willis, 1993).

Under the traditional paradigm, the planning of distance educationcourses are dominated by rational systems approaches which dispose coursedesign to the traditional behaviorist assumptions of instructional design.

This approach predisposes distance education to a subskills-based style of teaching and learning.

Efficiency and Economies of Scale

Another set of assumptions of the postpositivistic approach to distanceeducation concerns economics. Cost-effectiveness is a major goal of thoseoperating under the traditional distance education paradigm. For instance

Brown and Brown (1994) state:

Driven by problems of access and economics, governments are seek-ing alternative forms of delivery to fulfill the demand for basic educa-tion, continuing education, and training. Initially, learner access pro-vided the main incentive for development of institutional distance ed-ucation programming, but now, due to flagging economies, govern-ments perceive distance education as a cost-effective means of servingthe learner (p. 33).

Moore and Kearsley (1996) in their text on distance education explain,

A determination of whether a particular course is cost-effective is usu-ally based on several considerations, including the cost of distance de-livery compared to traditional delivery, potential savings due to low-ered travel expenses or the hiring of fewer teachers, and the possibilityof increased enrollment of students (p. 10).

This thinking leads to a broadcast model in which prepackaged infor-

mation is delivered in a linear and systematic manner. It leads to a one-to-many, mass education model. The behaviorist tenets of traditional instruc-tional design frequently drive the process of distance education today.


14/30


These paradigmatic beliefs and values have significant implications for

strategies of learning and teaching.

The Postpositivist Paradigm, Distance Education and Instructional Strategies

Gagnes Conditions of Learning (1985) are based on behavioral andcognitive learning theories, and have set the tone for thinking about instruc-tional strategies within this paradigm. Specifically , Principles of Instruction al

Design (Gagne & Briggs, 1974) have dominated the processes of teaching

and learning for over two decades.Instruction grounded in postpositivist assumptions centers on the reten-

tion and retrieval of information, knowledge transmission, and rules or al-gorithms (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). This type of instruction is typi-cally characterized by teaching out of context, teaching subskills, simplify-ing knowledge, teacher-directedness, and individual, competitive environ-ments.

Much of todays traditional DE is anchored in these values, and hasmany of the characteristics previously mentioned. The primary image is one

of an independent and solitary learner mastering content. The primary inter-action is between the student and the material. The learning environment iscarefully controlled by the teacher, and instructional strategies are mainlydidactic. Learning is defined as reaching prescribed goals through manage-ment of the setting to shape desired behavior.

Instructional strategies based upon postpositivistic assumptions in-clude: mastery learning, programmed instruction, direct instruction, sym-

bolic simulations, expert systems, and tutorials. Many of these strategies arecurrently implemented in DE.

Direct, teacher-centered instruction. Among the main features of directinstruction are teacher-centeredness, time management and a strong aca-demic focus. It is assumed that teachers must know exactly where a lessonis headed in order to assess whether the goals have been met (Lasley &Matczynski, 1997).

Direct instruction typically involves whole-class instruction on a newconcept, controlled practice to test understanding, guided practice for rein-forcement, and independent practice. Telecourses tend to implement direct

instruction. These courses frequently involve students watching an instruc-tor deliver instruction by way of a television screen, either asynchronouslyor synchronously. Practice and reinforcement are typically done indepen-dently and transmitted to the instructor through other technologies, such as


15/30


the Internet or facsimile machines. Old Dominion Universitys Teletechnet

(Teletechnet Courses, 1998) is and example of this type of direct instruc-tion. Teletechnet uses television and various computer technologies to de-liver telecourses to over 40 remote sites across the United States.

For example, one course related to object-oriented computing offered by the Open University in the United Kingdom, has a course syllabus andreadings and assignments online. Assignments are developed by the instruc-tor before class begins, and criteria for working with others in distancegroups (i.e., conferencing) is mandated.

Tutorials. Similar to direct instruction, tutorials mimic traditional instruc-tional strategies in DE. Tutorials are typically all-inclusive sets of materialsdeveloped with the goal of having students master content. In line with

postpositvistic assumptions and values, tutorials break objectives into sub-skills, provide practice for mastery of each subskill, and test for mastery be-fore moving to the next subskill. Typical tutorials provide information thatis out of context, and place an emphasis on correct answers rather than onunderstanding. There are many examples of online tutorials that are current-ly used in DE. One example is an algebra tutorial on graphing linear equa-

tions that has recently been taken offline. This tutorial provided instructionon 12 topics or subskills from identifying ordered pairs to graphing equa-tions to solving systems. The tutorial also included quizzes to determinemastery of each topic, two tests, a glossary, an index, a discussion room,and a message board.

Summary of the Post-positivist Model of Distance Education

To summarize, much of todays DE is anchored in and guided by a postpositivist paradigm. It is framed by the values and procedures of behav-ioral, cognitive, and information processing psychology, and thus places asignificant emphasis on delivery of preselected content to students in an ef-ficient and effective manner. The primary metaphor here is the industrialmodel where the point is to instruct as many students as possible as if theendeavor were a factory. This way of thinking is so ingrained that many

people may equate this with DE. Postpositivism is not the only paradigmwithin which to consider DE and behavioral, cognitive, and information

processing theories are not the only frameworks within which to consider learning, and how it may be facilitated in DE. In the following sectionssome alternatives to the postpositivistic paradigm that hold considerable

promise are presented.


16/30


THE INTERPRETIVIST PARADIGM AND DISTANCE EDUCATION

Interpretivists assume that education is about high-level cognitive pro-cesses that require opportunities to negotiate learning objectives, and thenvalidate knowledge through discourse and action. This paradigm is focusedon a holistic view of learning, and is based on social interaction as a prima-ry means of knowing and on multiple versus single views of reality. Thisapproach employs a cognitive-constructivist theory of learning and teachingthat moves beyond learning as rote memorization of prescribed content.The student is assumed to play an active role in knowledge construction,

and understanding is the goal rather than performance on out-of-context as-sessments. Interpretivist assumptions about education, planning, and effi-ciency differ greatly from postpositivistic assumptions.

Assumptions About Education

Under the assumptions of the interpretive paradigm in distance educa-tion, education is a special form of learning. Education is a process most

simply characterized as an interaction between teacher and student for the purpose of identifying, understanding, and confirming worthwhile knowl-edge (Garrison, 1993, p. 13). In the interpretivist paradigm the task is tochallenge learners to construct meaning within a learning community andvalidate knowledge through discourse and action.

Obviously, then, what counts for knowledge is not a set of prepackagedmaterials. Print materials merely serve as resources for reflection, interac-tion, and discourse. It is student understanding of the material constructedthrough interactions that count for knowledge. Learning objectives are ne-

gotiated and knowledge developed is often from complex and ill-structuredcontent as opposed to simple well-structured material.

Assumptions About Planning

Under the interpretivist paradigm in DE, planning becomes more of aniterative and recursive practice than a linear and hierarchical enterprise. Theideal of promoting student interaction and instruction that is responsive to

those needs drives the planning process. A course may not be completely planned prior to its commencement. Instructors play a key role in the plan-ning process and planning revolves around instructional needs rather than


17/30


around available technologies. Technologies are frequently considered as

tools to facilitate interaction because

without sustained interaction there is no way to facilitate criticallearning. The quality of an educational experience is dependent uponencouraging students critically to analyze differing perspectives, there-

by constructing personal meaning and validating that understanding byacting upon it through communicative acts (Garrison, 1993 p. 14-15).

Assumptions About Efficiency

Under this set of paradigm assumptions, the focus on efficiency isdownplayed, and economies of scale lose their meaning and importance.Facilitating interaction may require methods that go beyond those allowedunder an efficiency model. The notion of delivering a prespecified set of knowledge through an efficient, one-way broadcast, or one-to-many-modelis supplanted by a motivation to employ technology to promote interactionand collaboration. These differences in paradigm beliefs and fundamentalassumptions have implications for beliefs about instructional and learningtheories that can be brought to bear on distance education.

The Interpretivist Paradigm, Distance Education and Instructional Strategies

Instructional strategies that emerge from interpretivist assumptions tendto evolve from constructivist learning theories. These theories are based onthe assumptions that students construct their own view of knowledge andthat this knowledge is constructed through personal and social experiences.Constructivist theories value active, collaborative, and student-centeredlearning through authentic real-world experiences (Carr, Jonassen, Marra,& Litzinger 1998). Multiple perspectives, reflection, depth, and flexibilitycharacterize instruction based upon interpretivist assumptions. Under the in-terpretivist paradigm instructional strategies are implemented not to control,

but to adjust to student behavior as instruction proceeds (Winn, 1990). Theideal is an interdependent teacher-learner relationship. Communication be-tween teacher and student, student and student, and student and course ma-terials are all necessary components of the learning process.

Numerous instructional strategies have been implemented in DE thatfoster alternative ways of thinking about how learning may occur. Some of


18/30


these include: cognitive mentoring, case-based instruction, experiential sim-

ulations, situated learning, and collaborative learning.

Cognitive mentoring. Cognitive mentoring (Collins, Brown, & Newman,1990) is based on the apprenticeship concept developed for attainment of

physical skills and crafts. In cognitive mentoring, emphasis is placed onfostering intellectual and cognitive abilities. Cognitive mentoring has beenmodified in recent years to take advantage of technology. The use of com-

puter mediated communication to facilitate cognitive mentoring strategieshas assumed many names in recent years including distance mentors

(Means, Craighall, Schlager, & Schank, 1998), cybermentoring (Jonassen,Peck, and Wilson, 1999), telementoring (Harris, 1998), and teleapprentice-ship (Levin, Riel, Miyake, & Cohen, 1987).

The Electronic Emissary (Harris, 1998) is one of the most in-depth ex-amples of this DE strategy in K-12 schools. The Emissary maintains a data-

base of volunteer subject matter experts, and matches these experts with K-12 classrooms from around the world that are studying in their areas of ex-

pertise. For example, students studying the Civil War may be able to com-municate with a historian with a specialty in this time period who could

provide them with more indepth information and alternative perspectivesthan otherwise possible to obtain in a classroom.

Case-based learning. Case-based learning originated in business and lawschools (Christensen, 1987). In this approach, an account of a relevant situ-ation is critically examined by students. For example, students in a teacher ed-ucation course may examine an instructional scenario, discuss implications of actions by various characters in the case, and reflect upon how they might han-dle such a situation. Use of case methods may help students forge connections

between knowledge and practice (Cooper & McNergney, 1995, p. 2).CaseNET (CaseNET, 1998), a unique set of courses offered by the Uni-

versity of Virginia, implements case-based learning through DE technolo-gies. Instructors at sites around the world use multimedia cases that portrayscenes from real classrooms. CaseNET participants engage in dialogue andreflection about educational problem solving at the individual sites, but alsocommunicate through online discussions and videoconferencing withCaseNET participants at other sites.


19/30


20/30


that will be available to other higher education institutions and to K-12

schools. Through this course, students learn about history from many per-spectives, learn what it is like to be a historian, and develop identitieswithin a community of practice that extends beyond traditional class-room communities.

Collaborative learning. Collaborative and cooperative learning have manycommon characteristics. These methods differ markedly, however, on theassumptions they make about the role of the teacher, the nature of the learn-er, and the authority of knowledge.

In collaborative learning, teachers tend to direct student questions back to the group and to assume that students possess the social skills necessaryto participate in group learning. Students are encouraged to create their ownhypotheses and direct their own learning. They are also frequently asked to

present what they have learned to others in the class and to apply this learn-ing in authentic contexts.

Diffusion of Educational Technology: Policy and Practice is a graduatecourse jointly sponsored by the Center for Technology and Learning (IowaState University) and the Curry Center for Technology and Education (Uni-

versity of Virginia). The goal of this class was to examine organizationaland policy factors influencing the successful implementation of technologyfor the improvement of education. Students at both sites planned the coursesyllabus, participated in group discussions, prepared presentations on topicsof interest to them, and completed a group project related to Iowa and Vir-ginia state policies regarding the use of graphing calculators in K-12schools. The opportunity for students to compare the policies and practicesof different states and to hear the multiple perspectives of individuals fromother graduate schools was instrumental to the success of the course.

Summary of Interpretivist Models of Distance Education

The interpretivist model of distance education operates from a differentset of fundamental assumptions than the postpositivistic paradigm model.Applying these assumptions about teaching and learning results in a verydifferent model of distance education. As Jonassen and his colleagues put it,Too often, potentially interactive technologies are used to present one-way

lectures to students in remote locations (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins,Campbell, & Haag, 1995, p. 7). They would prefer that DE use emergingtechnologies to provide the opportunity for students to work and interact


21/30


together to build and become part of a community of scholars and practitio-

ners (Jonassen et al., 1995, p. 7).

THE CRITICAL THEORY PARADIGM AND DISTANCE EDUCATION

Critical theory focuses on dialogue over transmission in DE, and relieson the pedagogical theories of Paulo Friere and his methods of emancipa-tory pedagogy. Rather than a banking relationship between teacher and stu-dent where the teacher deposits knowledge into the student, the dialogic ap-

proach views students and teachers as equals (Ricther et al., 1995). Learn-ing and knowledge are situated within a students life experiences. Theteacher and students create knowledge together. The purpose of educationin general, and distance education in particular, is to empower people withthe development of critical thinking and intervention skills. Knowledge isconsidered a process that changes the situation for participants in terms of emancipation from oppression and movement toward more democraticforms in society. Little attention has been paid to the implications of thecritical theoretical paradigm for distance education. Thus much of our de-

scription here rests on speculation and limited experiments in critical dis-tance education.

Assumptions About Education

The critical theoretical perspective views traditional paradigms of dis-tance education as producing marginal forms of education for marginalstudents (Evans & Nation, 1993, p. 198). According to the critical theoreti-

cal approach, education is an exceedingly complex transaction for the purpose of transmitting and transforming societal knowledge. Societal valuesand beliefs are critically analyzed and integrated into individual perspec-tives such that a new consciousness will emerge (Garrison, 1993, p. 13-14). Critical theory challenges the notion of pure reason, showing itschangeabilty depending on the culture, the history and power in which it isembedded, and its major purpose is to make problematic what is taken for granted in culture so that a degree of social justice can be had by thosewho are oppressed (McCarthy, 1991, p.43). The goal is to produce

critically active students.The idea of community is central to notions of teaching and learning un-

der the critical theoretical model. In this paradigm the curricula is constructed


22/30


with students, not imposed upon them. According to Stephen Kemmis, fa-

cilitating dialogue, the central tenet of a critical theoretical distance educa-tion, is about creating circumstances that do not deny the possibilityof equal participation in a situation of reciprocity, symmetry and equality(Modra, 1991. p. 92). It is assumed that the instructor and the students will

be coequals in the definition of content as well as process of the course.This is a radically different set of assumptions than those held under the

postpositivistic paradigm of distance education. Technologies applied in thecritical theoretical course would thus be dependent on this process of inter-action and critique. The result of the course would be some form of libera-

tion of , or raising of, consciousness in students.

Assumptions About Planning

Similar to its interpretivist cousin, critical theoretical distance educa-tion would necessitate a participatory and iterative approach to course plan-ning. Much of the course would not be planned until students had engagedin meaningful dialogue with each other and with the instructor or facilitator.

Part of the course would involve helping the students to employ the varioustechnologies in an attempt to empower them for future opportunities. Con-tent of the course would evolve out of students experiences and interestsand would result in some form of raised consciousness, social liberation, or change. Hence appropriate technology would also evolve, and instructionaldesigners or instructional technologists might facilitate the processes de-fined by the students.

Assumptions About Efficiency

Efficiency takes a definite back seat in this model of distance educa-tion. The one-to-many model of broadcast education or one-way flows of communication are eliminated from consideration. Assumptions under this

paradigm necessitate the applications of two-way, interactive technologiesselected by the participants to facilitate course goals. It is only recently thattechnologies have become affordable enough to facilitate such a model of distance education. Under this model, notions of equity far outweigh the

drive for efficiency.


23/30


The Critical Paradigm, Distance Education and Instructional Strategies

According to Richter, et al. (1995, p. 11) much of the disagreementconcerning the definition in distance education reflects differing underlyingassumptions about the nature of teaching and learning. Some argue thatunder the conditions of the traditional paradigm of distance education, in-structors regulate the forms of discourse in which students can engage.Distance can amplify teacher control when non-dialogical approaches em-

phasize a transfer of knowledge and limit or prevent the negotiation of rela-tionships and meaning (Richter et al, 1995: p.11). Holmberg (1995) argued

that this is not an inherent problem of technology but the result of the socialuses of technology in traditional DE models. Smyth (1989) argued:

Distance education is a particularly good example. Because of the al-leged cost effective way in which forms of higher education deliverseducation (notice the languagewe usually only deliver commodities) to large numbers of widely dispersed students, it is looked favor-ably upon. The well embedded implication is that learning is nothingmore than another form of commodification to be perfected, in which

pre-digested knowledge is deposited in the heads of ever-grateful con-sumers. What is most disturbingis that learners are regarded as somekind of passive receptacle, rather than as active agents engaged in their own recuperation and learning (Smyth, 1989, p. 199).

Instructional strategies based on critical assumptions and values mustgo beyond instruction in its common form to strategies that strive to makereal changes in society. Critical theorists emphasize that there is a distinc-tion drawn between distance educators who regard dialogue as centralto their enterprise and instructional industrialists who regard their task as

harnessing behaviorist theory and practice to administrative efficiency(Nation, 1991, p. 104). Nation also discusses various modes of instructionthat might be included in a critical approach to distance education. Theseinclude: reflective (reflexive) learning, experiential learning, project-basedlearning, self-directed learning, deep processing, discovery learning, auton-omous learning. (Nation, 1991, p. 102). These approaches come from a

belief that learners should have and can have control over what and howthey learn . While there are some examples of the implementation of suchinstructional strategies within this paradigm, many more will undoubtedly

emerge in the near future.


24/30


Project-based learning. Social action projects (Harris, 1998) are designed

to help students become aware of unfair, unjust, or unsafe practices, and toencourage them to take action against them. For example, the Holocaust/Genocide Project (Holocaust/Genocide Project, 1998) exposes secondaryschool students to the atrocities that occurred during WWII. Instead of sim-

ply learning about this grim time in history from a stagnant book, students participate in teleconferences with people from around the world. They thengain different perspectives on the events and write articles in a publishedmagazine describing how this type of situation may be prevented in the fu-ture.

Self-directed learning. Self-directed learning encourages students to plantheir study through dialogue with each other and a facilitator. EDLF 789:The Social Consequences of Technology, at the University of Virginia,combines this strategy with critical underpinnings:

This graduate-student directed, interdisciplinary seminar explores through the lenses of equity, community, and diversitythe impacttechnology has on our lives. Questions regarding current roles of tech-nology in education, government, race relations, gender, and the envi-ronment will be threaded throughout the course.

This course is a collaborative course offered by the Curry Center for Technology and Teacher Education (University of Virginia) and the Center for Learning and Teaching (Iowa State University). The goal of the class isto move from a global perspective to local implications of these issues for education. Students at all sites collaborate to create a class web page to in-form others of these issues, and to organize plans of action toward equity.In this course students take responsibility for preparing class sessions. Stu-dents are also prepared in the uses of the distance education technology sothey can take charge of their own teaching and learning.

Emancipatory teaching in distance education. Evans and Nation (1989)reviewed several distance education programs that took a critical theoreticalapproach to teaching and learning. They argued that there is no formal, rep-licable model for such instruction. The goals of emancipatory distance edu-cation emerge from specific contexts (Smyth, 1989). Therefore, it is diffi-cult to generalize about this approach to distance education, but the follow-ing examples highlight elements of critical distance education.

Symth (1989) described a course in which teachers were engaged at adistance to theorize about their practice. Smyth asserted that teachers must


25/30


26/30


between students. She found in this work that her attempts to implement

critical pedagogy were at odds with some of the fundamental assumptionsof traditional distance education. She found distance education to be indi-vidualistic and asocial as was her work with the journals and logs. Criticaltheoretical pedagogy requires breaking away from the one-on-one commu-nication model that dominates distance education. Students in Modrascourse were frustrated by the lack of student-to-student contact. Modraspeculates that distance education by its very nature may be anti-dialogi-cal.

Fitzclarence and Kemmis (1989) reported on their attempt to create a

critical community in their distance education course on curriculum theory.Their challenge was to create a sense of living community in their dis-tance education courses. They found that this required some face-to-face in-teraction, a notion challenged by distance education at that time. They as-serted that the nature of traditional distance education makes the communi-tarian ideal highly problematic.

The early experiences implementing critical distance education appear to have been hampered by the state of technology in distance education. At-tempts at critical distance education rely on the presence of two-way, in-

teractive dialogue. In addition , students must have control over thesemeans of producing the class rather than act as passive receivers of technology mediated knowledge. The Social Consequences of Technologycourse at the University of Virginia is experimenting with just this format.Graduate students have been charged with the development of a course thatchallenges participants commonly held notions of technology and have

been left to design their own format for learning the content over a distance.

SUMMARY OF PARADIGMS OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

According to Garrison (1993), the danger is to remain within the dom-inant paradigm of prescribed and prepackaged course materials and simplyusing two-way communications as optional add-ons (p.12). The activityof distance education itself must change (p.13). Change is slow becausethe dominant paradigm reflects a particular view of the teaching-learning

process where the educational ideal is the efficient, effective delivery of prespecified content. The choice at the level of paradigm is between the

ideals of assimilating information faster and more efficiently or challeng-ing learners to construct meaning within a learning community (Garrison,1993, p. 13).


27/30


To operate from the interpretive or critical paradigm necessitates a re-

examination of how fundamental paradigm assumptions influence beliefsabout learning theory and the design and implementation of distance educa-tion models. The emerging paradigm necessitates utilizing technologiesand media to facilitate an educational transaction that values collaborativeand critical interaction while providing access in as affordable a method as

possible (Garrison, 1993, p. 19).What would constructivist distance education look like? Jonassen, et al.

(1995) summarized some characteristics of constructivist learning includingknowledge construction, collaborative learning, authentic and contextual

scenarios, reflective dialogue, and social interactions. Each of these charac-teristics are emphasized because of the foundational assumptions within theinterpretivist paradigm. They go on to present a view of constructivism ata distance that includes issues such as how courses are designed as well asthe types of instructional strategies that could be used.

It is important to recognize that different paradigms may lead to similar instructional strategies. It is also important to recognize that these instruc-tional strategies are rarely used in isolation. They are typically combinedwith other strategies and modified by individual instructors to meet needs in

specific learning contexts. Nonetheless, thinking about how instructionalstrategies fit within broader belief systems or paradigms is helpful whenconsidering how distance education may be implemented. What is calledfor here is not a whole scale abandonment of the postpositivistic paradigmin distance education, but for paradigm flexibility. The authors believe, asdoes Kemp:

The next few years are going to be filled with people coming around blind curves yelling things at you. If you have paradigm flexibility,

then what they will be yelling will be opportunities. If you have para-digm paralysis, then what they will be yelling at you will be threaten-ing. The choice will be up to you (Kemp, 1991 p. 18).

References

Arens, K. (1997). (Hi)Story: Telling stories of culture . Austin: Universityof Texas. Retrieved 8/27/2000: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/arens/Historiography/HistoriographyIndex.html


28/30


Brown F.B., & Brown, Y. (1994). Distance Education around the world. In

B. Willis, (Ed.), Distance education: Strategies and tools (pp. 3-40).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Bruss, N., & Macedo, P. (1985). Towards a pedagogy of the question, a

conversation with Paulo Friere ,. Journal of Education , 167 (2), 7-21.Carr, A., Jonassen, D., Marra, R.M., & Litzinger, M.E. (1998). Good ideas

to foment educational revolution: The role of systemic change in ad-vancing situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedagogy. Edu-cational Technology , 38 (1), 5-15.

CaseNET. (1998, December 13) [Online]. Available: http://casenet.edschool.virginia.edu

Chalmers, A.F. (1982). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis, IN:Hackett Publishing.Christensen, C. (1987). Teaching and the case method: Test, cases and

readings . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship:

Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B.Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of

Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cooper, J., & McNergney, R. (1995). Introduction: The value of cases in

teacher education. In J.M. Cooper (Ed.), Teachers problem solving: A

casebook of award-winning teaching cases (pp. 1-10). Boston: Allynand Bacon.Evans, T., & Nations, D., (Eds.) (1989). Critical reflections on distance ed-

ucation . London: Falmer.Evans, T., & Nation, D. (1993). Educational technologies: Reforming dis-

tance and open education, In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.). Reforming Open and Distance education: Critical Reflections (pp. 196-214). NewYork: St. Martins Press.

Fitzclarence, C., & Kemmis, S. (1989). A distance education curriculum for curriculum theory. In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Critical reflections

on distance education (pp. 147-178). London: Falmer.Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction ,4 th ed. New York: Holt.

Gagne, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1974). Principles of instructional design . New York: Holt .

Garrison, D.R. (1993).Quality and access in distance education: Theoreticalconsiderations. In D. Keegan (Ed.) Theoretical principles of distanceeducation (pp. 1-33). New York: Routledge.

Gibson, C. ( 1993). Towards a broader conceptualization of distance educa-tion. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education

(pp.121-135). London: Routledge.Gredler, M.E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology insearch of a (research) paradigm. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 521-540 ) . New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.


29/30


Guba, E. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog, In E. Guba (Ed.), The

paradigm dialog (pp. 17-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Harris, D. (1991). Towards critical educational technology in distance edu-cation. In T. Evans & B. King (Eds.), Beyond text: Contemporary writ-ing in distance education , (pp. 204-225). Victoria: Deakin University.

Harris, J. (1998). Curriculum-based telecollaboration: Using activity struc-tures to design student projects. Learning and leading with technology ,26 (1), 6-15.

Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and practice of distance education . London:Routledge.

Holocaust/Genocide Project (1998, December 13) [Online]. Available:

http://www.igc.org/iearn/hgp/International Communication and Negotiation Simulations (ICONS) (1998,December 13) [Online]. Available: http://ww.icons.umd.edu

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995).Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance ed-ucation. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (2), 7-26.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: Aconstructivist perspective . Columbus, OH: Merril.

Kemp, J.E. (1991). A perspective on the changing role of the educationaltechnologist. Educational technology, 31 (6), 13-18.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions , 3rd

ed. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Lasley, T., & Matczynski, T. (1997). Strategies for teaching in a diverse

society . New York: Wadsworth.Levin, J., Riel, M., Miayke, N., & Cohen, M. (1987). Education on the

electronic frontier: Teleapprentices in globally distributed educationalcontexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12 (3), 254-60.

McCarthy, T. (1991). Ideals and illusions: On reconstruction and decon- struction in contemporary critical theory . Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Means, B., Craighall, E., Schlager, M., & Davidson, P. Distance mentor-

ing: Facilitating collaborative learning through the network . (1998,December 13) [Online]. Available: http://helpnet.sri.com/DistantMen-tor/ms_txt.htm

Modra, H. (1989). Using journals to encourage critical thinking at a dis-tance. In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Critical reflection on distanceeducation (pp. 123-146). London: Falmer.

Modra, H. (1991). On the possibility of dialogue in distance education. InT. Evans & B. King (Eds.), Beyond the text: Contemporary writing ondistance education (pp. 83-100). Victoria: Deakin University.

Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view.

Boston: Wadsworth. Nation, D. (1991). Teaching texts and independent learning. In T. Evans &B. King (Eds.), Beyond the text: Contemporary writing on distance ed-ucation (pp. 101-129). Victoria: Deakin University.


30/30


Richter, C., Maxwell, L., & McCain, T. (1995). Distance education as

communication process: Transmission vs. dialogue in higher educa-tion . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Com-munication Association, Albuquerque, NM. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. 385 886)

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think inaction . New York: Basic Books.

Smith, J. (1989). The nature of social and educational inquiry: Empiricismversus interpretation . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Smith, J. (1993). After the demise of empiricism: The problem of judging social and educational inquiry. New York: Ablex.

Schultz, S., Tishler, W., & Hamilton, S. (1997). American history 102: Civ-il War to present. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin[Online].Available: http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/

Smyth, J. (1989). When teachers theorize their practice: A reflective approach to a distance education course. In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Criti-cal reflections on distance education (pp. 197-233). London: Falmer.

Teletechnet Courses (1998, December 13) [Online]. Available: http://web.odu.edu/webroot/orgs/AO/TTNET/teletechnet.nsf

Willis, B. ( 1993). Distance Education: A practical guide . EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Winn, W. (1990). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional de-sign. Educational Technology , 31 , 38-40.

Documents

Paradigms.pdf