In searching for information about distance learning theory that might inform my research into 19th century distance education, I came upon this article (thanks to Jenny Mackness):
Lee, K. (2016). A paradigm shift rhetoric and theory-practice gap in online higher education : a case study of an open university. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016 : (p. 251-259).
The author is Kyungmee Lee, Lecturer in Technology Enhanced Learning at Lancaster University. Her paper focuses on the discrepancy between social constructivist learning theories and the actual instructional designs for online classes used at places like the Open University.
I have long suspected that the maniacal adoption of collaborative pedagogy was based on very little evidence of efficacy. Instead, in my experiences studying connectivism and constructionist theory, I was aware that such methods were lauded by techno-utopians, many of whom weren’t actually teaching first-year college students. Studies demonstrated student satisfaction with the methods, but not better grades.
Lee notes that despite the insistence on a “paradigm shift” from “old” methods to collaboration and constructivism, resistance implies that the paradigm never shifted at all. The shift has been purely theoretical, and not adopted in practice, where most online classes do not use these techniques. While many studies have chided instructors and designers, implicitly or explicitly, for resisting the new and superior methods, this one subversively questions whether the methods really are better.
It’s an interesting approach, questioning the assumption of a change in the field. While the study does not get into the “new” pedagogies per se, it implies that they may not be better, or may be better under certain conditions, or that people who really want a paradigm shift think they can just declare one. This last is most interesting to me, because it begs the question cui bono?
Many of us assume that if there’s a new technique or tool, it might be better than what we’re doing, or at least be better than older options. We ask questions like: will this work for my students? is this an improvement on what I’m doing? We give it a try.
With a tool, it may occur to us that adopting it benefits the company providing it, especially if we pay for it. If we don’t pay, it’s become increasingly obvious that the “freemium” model either benefits the startup, or that our data becomes the product being traded, a la Facebook.
But perhaps with a method, we fail to ask these questions. To whose benefit is it that I adopt this method? The well-meaning researchers and their careers, certainly. But our students? If so, which students? Does it benefit me as an instructor? How?
I have attempted many different pedagogical models in my 28 years of teaching, both in the classroom and online. None have been inherently better than the others. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. Whatever is trendy, though, is considered a paradigm shift, or a “best practice”. Right now, for example, the Online Education Initiative, which is moving to control all online classes at California community colleges, insists that collaboration among students is required as part of its online course approval rubric. There is little research to support this requirement.
If we consider that a paradigm shift has occurred, we are much more comfortable requiring such methods, as if they were based on research instead of theory and some successful practice. By questioning whether the basic principles are sound, whether there is any support for “best practices”, we give ourselves much more choice. We also give ourselves the opportunity to examine past practices, not as outmoded or disproven (which in most cases they are not), but as possibilities for current and future practice.
An interesting post, Lisa. You originally questioned the pedagogy associated with default settings in LMS’s…so it is natural for you to question the pedagogy associated with “best practices.” I happen to like “collaboration”…but I would want some clarification as to what collaboration actually means? For instance, is peer review collaboration? IF you have your students tweet among themselves and you, is that collaboration? Is cooperation collaboration? When does one move from collaboration to co-creation? As vague as the word is…one could spin just about any “practice” into one that uses collaboration.
Hello Britt! Yes, I have certainly been willing to spin all three C’s (collaboration, cooperation, constructivism – even connectivism, now that I think about it) in explaining the ways in which my students work together. I could likely even pass OEI’s rubric, since my primary source boards have students posting, then they use each others’ sources for their writing.
Your questions have me considering the possibility that I have automatically interpreted cooperation as co-creation or peer reviewing, active collaboration in understanding the material through working together with intentionality, and collectively producing something (even if that something is a video of their small-group discussion). I have found such methods slow, difficult to implement, and disappointing in their results, although I have seen some teachers do such things successfully. I have also found that these methods take the student away from more individual reflection of the course material, into different social goals that detract from their learning rather than support it.
The pressure to create such experiences for students, however, is strong, and the private, individual grappling with material that I believe is required for true education is being denigrated in the process. We are privileging social interaction as if it automatically represents active learning, and I was gratified to read an article that questioned the entire concept.