Paradigms of Online Education and Its Future Directions Kim, Hoisoo, Ph. D., Professor (Director of...

Paradigms of Online Education and Its Future Directions


Kim, Hoisoo, Ph. D., Professor (Director of Lifelong Education Center, Chonnam National University, Korea)

ACU workshop, Bangkok, Thailand, 18-19 November 2014

[email protected]

Issues and Myths of Online Education

Knowledge Acquisition & Development Paradigm and Online Education

Participation Paradigm and Online Education

Transformation paradigm and Online Education

1

2

3

4

ContentContent


Conclusion 5

[email protected]

1. Issues and Myths of Online Education1. Issues and Myths of Online Education

1. Media or Method Debate Can Online Technology affect Learning?

Media or Methods, or Interaction between both of them?

Long Debate! Clark (1983; 1994; 2005) :

Media = Transportation Machines, No learning benefits to be gained from employing different media

Instructional methods can affect learning. Luterbach (2005a, 2005b), Kirschner et al. (2004), Reeves et al. (2004)

Kozma (1994) The unique attributes of each media can affect both learning and

motivation in an learning environment. Ross (1994a, 1994b), Jonassen et al.(1994),Morrison (1994), Reiser

(1994), Shrock(1994),Tennyson(1994), Ullmer(1994)

We cannot confirm media effect yet !

The Most Popular issues & Myths

[email protected]


2. “Any Time Anywhere” Myth Chen, Kao & Sheu, 2003; Cochrane, 2010; Cochrane and Bateman, 2010;

Frohberg, 2007; Herrington & Herrington, 2007; Koole, 2006; Laouris & Eteokleous 2005; Leung & Chan 2003; Orr, 2010; Pfeiffer et al., 2009; Shih & Mills 2007

Any Time, Anywhere, and Any Learning Really Possible? eLearning, m-Learning, u-Learning, etc.

Not testified assumption Many barriers and challenges to accomplish the myth Hew & Brush (2007)

A meta-analysis of factors affecting effective integration of eLearning into K-12 teaching, 48 studies from DB

123 barriers were found. How can we handle these huge number of barriers and challenges?

The Most Popular Issues & Myths

[email protected]


3. “The More Advanced Online Technology, The Better Education” Myth

When we integrate more advanced online technology, can we necessarily get better educational outcomes? It is not always true. We still have many challenges to overcome in order to get better

educational outcomes. We hear various complains about educational outcomes from

“educational consumers”, including companies, social organizations and public sectors everyday.

“Educational consumers” are not also satisfied with outcomes of online education.

What are wrong with our offline and online educational practices?


[email protected]


4. Social Media Issue Can we use social media efficiently for classroom learning?

“Social media are too social to use them effectively and efficiently for education.”

Social Media may overwhelm attempts to use them in more structured educational setting (Lin, et al., 2013).

However, so many people use social media! May social media fit better to different educational paradigms?


[email protected]


Do we have to remain under the current educational paradigm? Or not? There may be something wrong with the current educational

paradigm. What is the current paradigm? Do we need to take a consideration of alternative paradigms of

off/online education? We’d better take alternative perspectives of “knowledge” and

education. “inert knowledge”, “useless school knowledge”, “School is

dead.” “ruined university”, “We have to reform our universities.” etc.

How Can We Tackle These Myths and Issues?

[email protected]


Death of “Modern Knowledge”

[email protected]


Death of “Modern Knowledge”

http://blog.naver.com/intel007/220127530131

[email protected]


1. Do we have to teach students still “modern knowledge”?

2. Do we have to apply continuously online technology for better teaching of “modern knowledge”?

3. What are main problems of the current educational practices, including online education, under which we teach students modern knowledge?

4. What paradigms do we have to consider for development of our community and society?

5. What would be alternative paradigms of future online education?

Main Questions

[email protected]

2. Knowledge Acquisition and Development Paradigm and Online Education


Knowledge Acquisition and Development Paradigm of Education Purpose of Education

• Individual’s enrichment by acquisition of knowledge and devel-opment through transmission, comprehension, and construction of it

Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructionism “Modern Knowledge” teaching

• Truth, evidence, standardized verification method of knowledge claims

• Stable, certainty, consistence• ‘Individuals’ are able to acquire, store and transfer it.

Focus on Individual’s meaning making and helping individuals to

continuously learn (especially, constructivism)

Knowledge Acquisition and Development Paradigm (KADP)

[email protected]



Key Online Education Research and Practice under KADP(1) Media affordance perspective (Example: Online Learning Continuum)

People Remember

What they DO

What they SAY or WRITE

What they HEAR and SEE

What they SEE

What theyREAD

• Interactive live-classes/seminars• Interactive e-courses• E-mentoring or e-coaching

• Simulations• Games• projects

• E-courses with audio and video• Records live e-learning sessions

• E-courses with visuals• Online self-study guides• Online PowerPoint presentations

• E-mail• E-documents• E-whitepaper

e-reading e-learning

Low HighLevel of Instruction Design

Less

More

[email protected]

2. Knowledge Acquisition and Development Paradigm and eLearning


Key Online Education Research and Practice under KAP

(1) Media affordance perspective• The more capacity of media we use, the better learning occurs.

– Ex) Media Richness Theory

• Focus on how to help learners get knowledge. • Media Comparison Research (Clark, Kozma, Locatis, Rieser.

etc.)– Media effect on learning and motivation : achievement, perfor-

mance, teaching efficiency, cognitive efficiency– Interaction effect on learning and motivation among learners, media,

methods, and tasks– Looking for media to provide learners with authentic learning context

• Try to develop more affordable media

KADP and Media affordance perspective

[email protected]



Key Online Education Research and Practice under KADP

(2) Technological determinism• Any time Any where myth• Generational changes in attention, learning and even brain structure at-

tributed the power of technology (Prensky, 2001)• Several government policies of online education

– “The Mater Plan for ICT in Education” of Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, USA, etc.

– Assumption: “If teachers and students are given advanced eLearn-ing technology, they will engage in their teaching and learning using it.”

KADP and Media affordance perspective

[email protected]



Digital Textbook Project in Korea

(1) Comparison research of learning effectiveness of digital textbook and printed textbook (2010, 2011, 2012)

(2) Development of instructional models for using digital textbook Elementary school (Korean, Math, Social studies, science, 2012) Middle school (Korean, Math, Social studies, science, 2012)

Current Example

★ Task: Listening, speaking, writing

- Several instructional models

[email protected]



(1) Acquisition of “Modern Knowledge” becomes not valuable any longer in knowledge society than before.

Difficult to keep it in mind. Inability to carry knowledge across space and time More difficult to transfer to real world Short lifespan of knowledge

(Alternative perspective) Knowledge and skills embedded in every-day action, not in individuals’ heads or body as dislocated.

Problems of KADP and Media affordance & determinism

[email protected]



(2) Teaching of modern knowledge is problematized. Not good enough to do real jobs Low level of ROI (Return of Investment) Knowledge and skills are not individual learning outcomes

• Individual knowledge and skills deficit training models are problematic. Constructivist’s experience and reflection as learning methods are

also problematic. • Experience, including reflection, is often cast as a fixed thing, separated

from knowledge-making processes.• Separates mind and body, thinking from doing, and individuals from the

collective. Ignore the power relations that determine hierarchies in what learning

is most valuable, what knowledge remains marginal, etc.


[email protected]



(3) Technology affordance and determinism is problematized. Learning ‘afforded’ by the technologies becomes a black box with an

input of access, which occurs anytime or anywhere, and an output of learning.

Many factors affecting learning processes and outcomes are not considered in this research and practice.

Many online education policies started from this perspective have failed.

(4) Under KADP, both research and use of social media in edu-cation are difficult

“Social media are too social.” “They need to be more structuralized” “uncomfortable for educational use”


[email protected]

3. Participation Paradigm and eLearning: An Al-ternative3. Participation Paradigm and eLearning: An Al-ternative

Diagnosis, Operation, and treatment in a hospital.

Examples of the paradigm

[email protected]


Cell Phone company

Examples of the paradigm

Knowledge is dis-tributed to the community of practice.

[email protected]


Purpose of education : Construction of “Community of Practice (CoP)” Learning is:

Not Acquisition of knowledge and/or not development of thinking Engaging in changing processes of human participation in a particular CoP Objective of learning: to be a full participant of CoP, not to learn about the

practice Learn by interacting with a CoP (with its history, assumptions and cultural

values, rules, and patterns of relationships), tools at hand (including objects, technology, language), and the moment’s activity (its purposes, norms, and practical challenges).

Knowledge Not acquired, stored, represented, and managed by individuals. Knowledge is distributed to people in a CoP and tools that they use. Knowing is interminably inventive and entwined with doing.

Participation Paradigm of Education

[email protected]

3. Participation Paradigm and eLearning 3. Participation Paradigm and eLearning

Key concerns of research and practice of online education Not acquisition of knowledge and skills through transmission or construction How to help learners be peripheral participants and then become full partici-

pants. How to help learners engage in changing processes of human participation

in a CoP Example of Instructional methods

• eLearning or Blended learning based cognitive apprenticeship• Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (Scardamalia &

Bereiter, 1994)• Rogoff (1990; 1995): Cultural Historical participation theory

– apprenticeship– guided participation– participatory appropriation

PP and Online Education

[email protected]

4. Transformation Paradigm and Online Education 4. Transformation Paradigm and Online Education

Contradictions and Problems in a Society

Transformation Paradigm of Education

[email protected]


Purpose of education : Construction and resolution of successively evolving tensions or contradictions in an activity system ENGESTRÖM (1995; 1999; 2010; 2012)


• Technology belongs to the “instruments”• Object is problems.

[email protected]


Learning Interaction of components in an activity system to solve continuous

contradictions• An interplay of individuals’ choice making and design within so-

cial relations constituted by material interests, cultural histories, and conflicting discourses.

Expansion of the activity system to which individual subjects and organizational members belong through resolution its con-tradictions• Construction of a new advanced activity system

Knowledge • Not acquired, stored and transferred individually• Distributed in the activity system• Cannot be separated from the activity system


[email protected]


Expansive Learning Cycle It is not a problem-solving process. Non-linear process. Back-and forth activ-

ity. The process involves the activity system.


[email protected]


Key concerns of research and practice of Online Education Application of EP to resolve contradictions in an educational activity

system by integrating an eLearning system as an instrument.• Ex) How to integrate eLearning into a classroom activity system

Application of EP to develop a new eLearning software (including game, simulation, CSCL S/W, etc.) to resolve contradictions in a job performance activity system.

Use of social media to resolve contradictions in an activity system • All members of the activity system and outside related persons are able

to join the process of expansion.• Unsystematic process, no problem!• Schools, workplaces, etc.

Transformation Paradigm and eLearning

[email protected]


Examples of previous research and practice

Transformation Paradigm and eLearning

• A study of conceptualizing the learning that occurs as student nurses engage in simulation experiences.

[email protected]

5. Conclusion5. Conclusion

Knowledge Acquisition paradigm dominates current education. “Modern Knowledge” is problematic. Schooling and eLearning to teach “Modern Knowledge” are also

problematic. Alternative paradigms are necessary.

Knowledge is not acquired and transferred by individuals separated from the sociocultural and historical structure.

Knowledge is distributed in both community and materials. Participation Paradigm Transformation Paradigm Etc.

The more paradigms, the better research and practice in online education.

Paradigms of Online Education and Its Future Directions Kim, Hoisoo, Ph. D., Professor (Director of...

Documents

Transcript of Paradigms of Online Education and Its Future Directions Kim, Hoisoo, Ph. D., Professor (Director of...