Traditionalists: Focus on Presentation of Facts and Techniques
In this perspective, the primary function of teaching is the impartation of knowledge, and the teacher should be the one who controls this process (Keller, 1999; Lambert & Walker, 1995). In situations where access to resources is very limited, and there is strong motivation to excel, both intrinsically on the part of the student, and extrinsically by social pressure from peers and family, traditional methods of lecture, memorization and recitation can produce impressive results, as I have witnessed in Haiti and Tanzania. Because of their subject-oriented approach, however, traditional methods are not at their best in helping students with non-linear, non-print-based learning styles, or those who take more time than the average of the group (Jensen, 1998; Olson, 2000b).
Much of what we usually think of as comprising the traditional approach is actually a product of the 1800s and early 1900s rather than colonial times, however. The influence of the industrialist Frederick Taylor and, from another field, those in the new field of educational psychology, led to the development of what has previously been described as the "factory model" of education. Another description of this viewpoint is the "efficiency model," in which subjects are broken down into small units, previewed, presented and reviewed before testing, and there is tight control of the curriculum, time spent on each task, and on methodologies employed. Four essential elements necessary for efficiency in the factory or business were deemed appropriate for the school as well:1) clear and measurable aims;2) an organization sufficient to achieve those aims; 3) necessary equipment and training in its use; 4) a strong executive held responsible for achieving the aims of the educational institution. Thus centered on "scientific management," a strong drive was sought toward standardization of teaching materials, teacher training and educational methodology, but somehow never achieved to the satisfaction of those trying to reform the "old-fashioned" inefficient approaches (Norton & Wiburg, 1998).
Progressivists: Focusing on Exploration of Learning
Reacting to the subject-centered perspective of traditional education and the perceived impersonal nature of the "efficiency model," Progressives have believed that a student-centered approach was necessary for transformative, lasting learning to take place. They also believed that this approach is the one in which student motivation to learn is highest. The Progressivist philosophy continues to have an influence today, as it has been one of the major forces behind all student-centered learning, including the Open Learning Environment approach described below (Cuban, 1993; Egan, 2002).
Famous progressives such as Francis Parker (late 1800s) and John Dewey (early 1900s) had only to look at the state of public education in their day to be convinced that the "efficiency model" was not working. Their analysis of the reasons for this centered on philosophical grounds much more than methodological ones, however, because they felt that the model itself was flawed. They believed that traditionalist approaches (by which they primarily meant the "efficiency model") fostered alienation and lacked the personal engagement so necessary to foster learning. Missing were the passion about subject matter, examination of values and desire to engage learners in a quest for truth which are the hallmarks of a love of learning (Olson, 2000a; 2000b; Mooney, 2000). Part of the problem, they felt, was that a factory model, by its restrictive vision of teachers as technicians and students as empty vessels waiting to be filled, framed the learning task in ways fundamentally lacking in meaning and connections to life. It had failed to develop personal connections between teacher and student, between learners, and between subject and learner. (Hoff, 2000a) To them, learning was an ongoing exploration, to be guided and helped by teachers and instructional materials, but not controlled (Ellsworth, 1997).
Methodological concerns were secondary to strategies and goals within the Progressive movement, but it has inevitably focused on all student-centered methods. A key belief of the Progressive movement is that teaching has not taken place until learning has taken place. This means that presentation of the material to be learned, no matter how carefully and efficiently done, is insufficient to ensure learning. The learner must process it at his or her own level, and must want to do so. This makes the task of guiding and supporting learning much more than a management procedure. (See for example, Caine & Caine, 1999; Jensen, 1998; Reigeluth, 1994; Sylwester, 1995).
Behaviorists: Focus on Conditioning of the Learner
Influenced by experiments in psychology which focus on change in behavior as the measurable proof of change in understanding and perspective, Behaviorists in the narrowest sense tended to reduce all learning to a well-organized stimulus-response framework (Franklin & Nurius, 1998). This perspective of the 1930s, 40s and 50s caused a new version of the "efficiency model," (Hoff, 2000b) with additional design characteristics being added. Once again the paramount belief was that the best presentation of the best educational material, properly reinforced, would produce the best learning environment (Lambert & Walker, 1995). Even though much research was done on the learner, the focus was still on the means of presentation of material. Learners were deemed to possess a generalized intelligence governing their ability to absorb the material presented, and consequently rates of absorption and retention would be as predictable as a standard IQ bell curve. The responsibility of the teacher was to faithfully present, review and test; that of the student was to faithfully work at processing the material presented. Changes in understanding were measured by charting changes in behavior through testing (Molenda, 1997; Tennyson & Elmore, 1997).
Because of the work of B. F. Skinner and his work in explaining applications of operant conditioning, Behaviorists employed insights from the study of habituation, distractors, minimally significant differences and reinforcement. These principles found their way into educational materials through the 1960s and into the 1970s (Mooney, 2000). Further research in educational psychology has led to more and more sophisticated understanding of the conditions of learning (Romiszowski, 1999) and the nature of the learning process (Gardner, 1999). The perspective of the Behaviorists has been too limited in scope to effect a truly long-lasting influence on educational theory, but it has had its greatest impact on testing, especially in the development of large-scale multiple-choice tests (Hoff, 2000b; Ross & Morrison, 1997).
Systems Thinking: Focus on Better Presentation and Performance
The next major influence in the world of education came from systems engineering and communication theory, which helped give further depth and specificity to the Behaviorist viewpoint. Developed in the 1960s, Systems Thinking gave birth to early forms of "programmed instruction," in which necessary information was presented in a systematic, carefully paced fashion, with constant opportunity for feedback, which both measured comprehension and provided reinforcement when understanding had been achieved. The genius of this perspective was to study how best to present subject matter, and provide clear contextually appropriate ways to demonstrate the conceptual mastery of the material. The criterion developed by the U.S. military, which used programmed instruction extensively, was a 90% correct response rate to questions embedded in the presentation or review materials. This led to a standardized curricular development cycle of analysis, design, testing, and revision (Molenda, 1997).
Built upon a limited understanding of the nature of intelligence, (c.f. Gardner, 1999) Systems Thinking in its early days produced educational materials which were cleverly comprehensive in their coverage of subject matter, but failed to provide adequate motivation for learners (Lambert & Walker, 1995). The flow charts and careful studies of how to connect ideas bore fruit in unexpected ways, however, as those influenced by Behaviorism as well as Systems Thinking, such as Gagne, began to discover more and more relevant conditions for learning on the individual level (Reigeluth, 1994), and for supporting the learning process at a class or larger group level (Romiszowski, 1999; Sylwester, 1995, 2003).
Cognitivists: Focus on Understanding Relationships
In a radical departure from Behaviorist thinking, Cognitive theorists focused on comprehension as the key to learning. They have proposed that comprehension precedes and shapes changes in behavior, and that repetition of stimuli or systematically designed lessons are of no use when necessary preparation has not been done to assist comprehension (Mayer, 1999).
Among the areas specific to the Cognitivist perspective are:
1) the organization of learning under "generative" topics, with easily understood goals, which show connections to larger curricular concerns;
2) selection and framing of subject matter which is interesting to both students and teachers;
3) allowing multiple forms of comprehension and expression;
4) activities which support reflection and public demonstration of learning;
5) frequent feedback and assessment from multiple sources and in a variety of forms: self-tests, peer evaluation, portfolio development, presentations and reports as well as standardized testing (Perkins & Unger, 1999).
Because of their focus on the learner's comprehension and how to support it, Cognitivists are student-centered and incorporate many insights and emphases of the Progressive movement. In addition, the careful selection of materials and use of a broad variety of teaching methods has been shaped by a strong concern for helping learners develop key connections between discrete facts and topics to larger concepts and application of their learning to real life (Reigeluth & Moore, 1999).
Additionally, Cognitivist research gave birth to an approach which has come to be known as "Brain-Based Learning" (BBL), (Caine, Caine & Crowell, 1997; Caine & Caine, 1999; Jensen, 1998; Sylwester, 1995, 2003) a refinement and extension of research in educational psychology which was free from Behaviorist assumptions and aware of the social nature of learning (Franklin & Nurius, 1998), as well as of the complexities of learner motivation and the influences that both areas bring to the learning process (Reigeluth & Moore, 1999).
OLEs: Focus on Application of Learning through Shared Understanding
Using an umbrella term, Open Learning Environments (OLEs) (Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 1999), to describe a variety of approaches, we can say one of the key shared characteristics is that they are all based on the power of the group to support learning, rather than on just the interaction between educational material and learner or teacher and student (Barab & Duffy, 2000). There are ties to the insights of research in educational psychology as with Behaviorist, Systems Thinking and Cognitivist perspectives, but there is more focus on the collaborative, social aspects of learning. In Sylwester's (2003) provocative phrase, we are always dealing with "a biological brain in a cultural classroom."
The perspective of the learner as a cognitive apprentice is helpful in defining OLEs. Similar to the Progressivist perspective, which has influenced this approach, it has as its goal to help everyone to reach his or her potential (Reigeluth, 1999). Because it is learner-centered, or at the very least, learner-sensitive, as much customization as possible is proposed. It promotes the same tenets as Constructivism, Situated Learning and other learner-centered learning theories: active learning, some measure of student direction, and authentic, meaningful learning tasks, (Land & Hannafin 1999, Molenda 1997), and thus can be said to incorporate each of these perspectives. Learning is conceptualized as participation in a community of practice, one which helps its apprentices begin to master not only new knowledge but new identities, roles, attitudes, skills and shared perspectives as they negotiate new meanings in the context of their own understanding and those of the new community (Barab & Duffy 1999). The shift has been away from the book to the person, from the individual to the group, and from the coercive nature of rigid schedules and set curricula to the real-world setting of learning as collaborative, lifelong, filled with ambiguity and discovery (Land & Hannafin 1999). Instructional design which does not allow for both flexibility and imaginative application on the part of the practitioners is a design which is robbing them of the joy of full participation, of creating their own version of the learning project. Open Learning Environments and similar approaches create this flexibility and invitation to the learner to "fill in the details" as a part of their basic structure (Jonassan 1999; Land & Hannafin 1999).
The design of OLEs and Learning Communities have the best hope for truly integrating instructional theory and methodology (Reigeluth 1999). An example of good integration between curricular design and learning theory is Romiszowski's psychomotor theory (Romiszowski 1999). It is very comprehensive, and shows well the linkage between what is to be taught and how. Because of the work that he has done in analyzing the continuum of skills necessary to acquire proficiency in a variety of tasks which require both cognitive and physical learning, Romiszowski's psychomotor theory is able to show connections with various other theories, and to address the cognitive, affective, psychomotor and social domains.
Communities of Practice
The combination of self-regulation with careful guidance and support is the key to the success of OLEs. All else being equal, the more students are self-regulated, the more motivated they will be, and the more ownership they will feel toward the educative process. A Community of Practice perspective sees learning in more informal settings taking place as a by-product of joining a group of practitioners and having a legitimate, peripheral participation in one or more aspects of the practice being carried out by the experts.
Communities of practice do not usually require heavy institutional infrastructures, but their members do need time and space to collaborate. They do not require much management, but they can use leadership. They self-organize, but they flourish when their learning fits with their organizational environment. The art is to help such communities find resources and connections without overwhelming them with organizational meddling. This need for balance reflects the following paradox: No community can fully design the learning of another; but conversely no community can fully design its own learning (Wenger 1998, p.5).
Wenger's astute observation reminds us that learners must be involved in designing their own learning, but that by themselves, they cannot design their learning adequately. They need help from real-world practitioners and from information-brokers: the instructors, mentors and other veterans who are willing to help them join the community of practice. Communities of practice are hard to describe, but powerful in their working, and a wonderful lens through which to conceptualize the many types of learning that take place all around us. More to come on that...