Web
3.0 and Learning/Education 3.0 are lurking on the horizon with a greater
emphasis on creation, co-operation, connectivism, collaboration,
interchangeable roles of learner/facilitator/coach/teacher, increased peer to
peer influence and a world where technology is everywhere and affecting
everyone. (Hendler in Dron 2012). The ‘flipped classroom’, gamification and virtual
worlds for learning will perhaps become the norm. This might suggest the demise of Behaviourism as a relevant learning theory, yet research and the basic requirements
of some of these innovations are likely to add to its credibility rather than its
obsoletion.
Online
games, can be viewed as opportunities for behavioural learning to take precedence,
given that they require a number of lower level activities. Gamers must learn basic rules in terms of the
game, its objectives and skills involved in navigating through the game. Sometimes,
there is a built in 'training' module where learners are given feedback by the
computer to enhance their gaming skills and responses. Wu et. al. (2012, p270) suggest that more
complex virtual worlds require more complex cognitive and
social skills.
The
evolving flipped classroom, comprises a mixture of ‘external’ instruction often
focusing on solitary activities together with ‘internal’ discussions, reflections
and analysis. Behaviourism on the outside, Constructivism on the inside.
The
growth of social networks as learning tools might be considered the empire of
the Constructivists. Yet Conole and Oliver (2006, p219) suggest that even these
digital tools may be 'perceived differently' by practitioners depending upon
their learning theory preference: a forum might be perceived as an opportunity
for collaboration, reflection or sharing; alternatively it might be a means to
check learning and give feedback.
Mödritscher's
comparative research, on higher educational online courses, noted that students’
confidence in achieving their outcomes utilising the Behaviourist approach was
25% higher than those following the Constructivist approach and 50+% higher than those following the Cognitive based course. This was supported by a significantly higher percentage
pass rate by the Behaviourist taught students in their final exam. Their pass rates were
10% higher than the Constructivist students and almost 20% higher than the Cognitivists. Those that allocate the funding or create and promote government
policies may be unwilling to change this Behaviourist status quo for fear of creating
disillusionment, lowering standards and attainment or loosing public support.
Currently,
there is a disparity between practitioners’ espoused adherence to a constructivist
pedagogy and their dependance on “behaviourist motivators”. (Thorpe in Conole
and Oliver, 2006, p34). A review of recently published works on educational
psychology and teaching methods indicates that teachers do not recognize how
learning is viewed or defined from a cognitive perspective (Yilmaz 2008b). This
suggests that practitioners will need to increase their self-awareness regarding
their own teaching practices, as well as recognising alternative learning
theories, if they are to initiate fundamental changes in learning design.
Finally,
Mödritscher recommends that “It is important to choose the appropriate
e-learning strategy for implementing an online course”. Carlile and Jordan, (2005)
along with Anderson and Tron (2012) argue that behaviourism might be better
suited to the 'training' world rather than the academic world because training
modules are normally linked to learning objectives and metrics that can be
measured and skills that can be demonstrated.
“Behaviourism
works best in the teaching and assessment of competencies, where you want to
test and verify that the student or trainee does indeed possesses the requisite
skills or competencies. “ (Carlile and Jordan, 2005)
Behaviourism
is here to stay, despite the ongoing innovations in digital learning. Perhaps the
real dramatic changes will centre on the perceptions of the practitioners along
with a more considered and better informed approach to learning design.
References:
Anderson, T. and Dron, J.(2012 ) Learning Technology
through three generations of technology enhanced distance education
pedagogy
Athabasca University, Canada [Online] Available from:
http://www.eurodl.org/?article=523
Carlile, O. and
Jordan, O. (2005) It works in practice but will it work in theory? The
theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy [Online] Waterford Institute of
Technology
Available
from:
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/carlile-jordan-IT_WORKS_IN_PRACTICE_BUT_WILL_IT_WORK_IN_THEORY.html.
(Accessed 18/02/2014)
Conole,
G and Oliver, M. Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research, Taylor and
Francis e-Library, 2006
Mödritscher, F. (2006) e-Learning Theories in Practice: A Comparison of three Methods, Journal of Universal Science and Technology of Learning, [Online] Available from: http://www.jucs.org/justl_0_0/elearning_theories_in_practice/justl_0_0_0003_0018_moedritscher.html (Accessed 17th February 2014)
Wu,
W.H et al. (2012) Investigating the
learning-theory foundations of game-based learning: a meta-analysis, Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning 28 ,
265–279
Yilmaz,
K (2011)The Cognitive Perspective on Learning: Its Theoretical Underpinnings
and Implications for Classroom Practices The Clearing House, , 84: 204–212,
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
