Introduction

For one of my courses I need to do some remedial reading on education theory. Since I didn’t do my undergrad in education, I don’t have the background of some of my classmates, and so I’m grateful for this package of information. I’m going to document my notes below.

Learning Objectives:

After completing this unit you should be able to:

1. explain the difference between an archetype, a paradigm and a model;
2. discuss the key characteristics of Davies’ three educational technologies;
3. discuss the key principles of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism;
4. explain the key differences between behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism;
5. discuss the difference between the objectivist and the subjectivist epistemologies;
6. discuss the implications of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism on instructional design and development;
7. explain the five perspectives on teaching; and
8. appreciate the value of different approaches to teaching and learning.

Obj 1: Archetypes, Paradigms and Models

When first talking about technology, Davies (1978) discusses the differences between decisions, which are choices before an event “between a range of alternatives, none of which is probably more right than the other” (p. 10), whereas judgements take place after an event and are choices between “‘right’ and ‘wrong’; a choice between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘true’ and ‘false'” (p. 10). From this he goes on to note that when choosing a technology for use in education, one might start by making a choice but must at some point afterward make a judgement and evaluate these decisions for their worth.

Questions for Reflection

What is the difference between an archetype, a paradigm, and a model?

Archetype: “The viewpoint or perspective used by someone engaged in an act of inquiry” (Davies, 1978, p. 16). A framework or prototype useful for in-communication about the “myths, dreams and ritualised models of professional conduct” (p. 16). They are the framework on which the community is built. Can limit growth beyond the commonly-held ideas of what education or teaching is. Archetypes can serve multiple paradigms but often only serve one.

Paradigm:  The paradigm is a concept with more structure around a given idea or theory, including “definitions, statements and interrelationships between the statements” (Davies, 1978, p. 17). Diagrams are often used to explain the relationships between different aspects of a phenomena, revealing methodologies and suggest research questions for further study. The paradigm is more limited than a worldview, and is rarely a new idea, as an archetype may be. Educational technology paradigms may be recognised in two ways: 1) it is new enough to be appealing, drawing adherents away from other paradigms, and 2) is not yet fully formed, allowing for adherents to add to and refine the basic structure while bringing in yet more adherents (Davies).

Adherents to a specific paradigm share values and concerns, often working together with a common set of authoritative texts and a set of rituals (Davies, 1978). This paradigm is the glue that holds their work together in a common set. Davies laments that educational technology is (at the time of writing) greatly lacking breadth in its paradigms, with the variation that does exist lacking creativity in distinctions.

Pedagogies and curricula designs, while called “models,” are actually paradigms (Davies, 1978).

Paradigms are constructed to prove they are wrong, allowing it to be replaced with another paradigm that more accurately reflects reality (Davies, 1978).

Model: Usually at least partially quantitative, is more specific and detailed than a paradigm (Davies, 1978). The example Davies gives is that of a model car, in which the model can be used to determine the facts of reality on the basis of a certain scale. Another example given is that of a map, where distances on the map correspond to distances in reality. Davies attributes the rise of models as an authentic source of knowledge based on three factors: 1) manipulation of people and organizations is unethical/unlawful, 2) the costs of dealing with actual people is too high, given the increasing uncertainty that may breed errors, and 3) contemporary models are actually pretty good at representing reality, so confidence in their results has increased (Davies).

Models, unlike paradigms, are constructed to use in determining the solution to a particular problem (Davies, 1978). They are often problem-specific, and different models may present the same phenomenon from the perspectives of different paradigms. The strength of the model is the ability to use it to form hypotheses for testing.

Davies (1978) complains that few models in educational technology have been tested, and those that have lack reference to underlying theory. He says the research that has been performed is fragmented and disjointed in such a way that creating a framework for the future from the parts is a Sisyphean task.

 

Obj 2: What are the key characteristics of Davies’ three educational technologies?

The three educational technologies don’t have any particular names and thus are simply numbered sequentially.

Technology One (T1): Davies (1978) identifies this as being a hardware-driven approach to technology in which education problems are solved with methods common to the physical sciences and engineering. The assumptions are that the technology of the machines employed determines the quality of the output. T1 serves to increase efficiency in information transfer, especially as it relates to larger groups of students. The cost/benefit ratio is primarily financial.

Technology Two (T2): Davies (1978) sees this as a software-driven approach with a basis in behavioural science. The design of the message, rather than the medium, is key to efficient learning according to T2. Curriculum development revolves around “identifying appropriate aims, goals and objections; selecting relevant content and subject matter; choosing contrasting learning methodologies, activities and experiences so as to make for a worthwhile and rewarding course of study; and then evaluating not only the success of the resulting learning experience but also the effectiveness of the very development techniques employed” (Daves, p. 13).

Technology 3 (T3): This technology combines both the hardware and software approaches, rejecting systematic (mechanical) development in favour of systemic (organic) method (Davies, 1978). The focus is on both the process and the outcomes of teaching. Using systems analysis, the technology looks more at individuals as actors in a group rather than individuals independently. The environment (media/hardware) are as important as the message (software/content). Schools, including administration, teachers and students are all part of a symbiotic whole, and the system itself is either healthy or unwell.

As such, T1 sees solutions to problems in transmission-reception, T2 seeks to purposefully shape behaviour, while T3 takes a more integrated approach. It seeks to identify the best approach to a given problem through diagnosis and inquiry without prejudice as to the source of or solution. This inquiry, however, can have messy outcomes. Davies (1978) notes, “What at first might appear to be a nice, self-contained difficulty, can soon become a matter of complexity involving a greatly enlarged context” (p. 14). Davies believes that it is common sense to take a measured approach to change, even when it seems the entire system needs to be dismantled, suggesting that with T3, practitioners must put boundaries on their problem, deal with the primary or immediate problem without going overboard. This method is not efficient, but it may be (eventually?) effective.

Davies (1978) identifies “five skills of effectiveness” (p. 15) that form the foundation of the T3 approach:

1. sensitivity, so that the needs of the total situation, both people and task, can be sensed
2. diagnostic ability, so that the nature of the problem or difficulty can be identified and communicated
3. decision making, so that appropriate actions can be selected from a wide range of possible alternatives
4. flexibility, so that it is possible to implement whatever the situation demands or requires
5. action skills, so that routine and mechanistic tasks of implementation can be efficiently carried out. (p. 15)

Davies cautions against biting off more than is possible to chew, respecting the time of both student and teacher in the interest of effort output for greatest return rather than busywork. This will not always be with consensus, but should consider dissenting opinions. 

 

What are the key characteristics of the audio-visual, the engineering and the problem-solving archetypes of educational technology?

When Davies (1978) was writing, he listed the engineering archtype as the most pervasive, in which associated paradigms had a bias toward objectivity as in the hard sciences. Davies quickly dismisses the pervasive assumption of his contemporaries that objectivity was thus the “only paradigm possible in educational technology, especially in the areas of curriculum, course and instructional development” (p. 19). He makes space for subjectivity, calling both it and objectivity assumptions. Much as in the case of light being both particles and waves, he comments that the very process of observation changes the observed, changing the phenomenon merely by observing it. Thus, objectivity is limited, as the mere act of making observations and analysis contaminates. The new archetype, based on problem-solving, employes lateral thinking over vertical. Davies argues that objectivity is devoid of ethical concerns, but this is critical to subjectivity as it draws upon behaviourism. He cautions against Dogmatism, as technologists still need to make judgements and decisions with the information they have, and implies that rigidity can lead to poor conclusions.

The characteristics of each archetype are as follows:

The Audio-Visual Archetype: This is the first of the three archetypes, initially developing in the 1930s and growing in popularity following the second world war (Davies, 1978). This archetype is based on the hardware used to deliver information “chunks;” an aid to presentations and teaching, increasing access to experiences not normally available, expanding the sphere of influence of teachers across geographic boundaries, enriching teaching and learning by integrating with both processes, and in assessment through computers or other machines, expediting the process.

The Engineering Archetype: With growing interest in programmed learning coming to the fore in the 1960s, the Engineering Archetype emerged with it (Davies, 1978). This was still prevalent contemporary with Davies’ article. B.F. Skinner’s influence was heavy on the archetype in which behaviourist technology was implemented on teaching an learning. This archetype is highly process-oriented, in which experiments are repeated with small variations to find optimal approaches to education delivery and reception. It reflects the pharmacological techniques of control and test populations. Davies criticizes this approach, as some technologists lose the forest for the trees, creating overly-complicated systems for analysis when the foundations upon which they are build rely on poor assumptions.

The Problem-Solving Archetype: Was beginning to emerge in the mid-1970s, and Davies (1978) saw it as more innovative, due in part to its relationship with the creative process.   As of the late 1970s, it was still in a growth stage. Comparing its approach to a chess game, Davies says this archetype requires intense concentration, ability to foresee consequences to several degrees of removal, flexibility, acquired skills and learning experiences. Activities should be developed out of a sense of dissatisfaction with the goal of resolving it as quickly as possible.

 

What archetype, paradigm and model of educational technology do you think most of your teaching would fall into?

I teach in a culture where I see (or believe I perceive) methodology sprung largely from the Audio-Visual Archetype, where, as Mark Twain might have said, “a professor’s lecture notes go straight to the students’ lecture notes, without passing through the brains of either.” These lectures rely heavily on powerpoint in a lecture hall with a microphone to amplify the professor’s voice. Students are variously sleeping, talking, texting, making trips into the hall, and yes, a few are cognizant of what is supposed to be happening in the space.

Dealing with these expectations from my students has created some difficulty as I attempt to work within the Problem-Solving Archetype. One might conclude that my foremost problem is primarily one of expectations! As far as the growth of my students in the content area is concerned, many of my colleagues view it as a happy accident when it occurs. This is, as one might imagine, a source of frustration but also of great opportunity. As a visible “other” in the classroom (I am of both a different nationality and ethnicity than my students in a largely homogeneous setting), my proverbial foot-in-the-door to change is my very otherness. From this I am able to create a space, however small, where things are different.

As for my paradigm, I haven’t set myself into any as of yet. The tabula rasa that I work with affords me many opportunities to test and experiment with pedagogy as I see fit. As of this year, some mandates have come in as to how the program will be taught (see the above comment on the Audio-Visual paradigm), but I do my best under it to carve out a space for my own approaches. I have no fear (perhaps to my folly!) of experimenting with new technologies, remixing existing technologies for a new purpose if it solves a pedagogical problem, such as smartphone-based chat groups with students for multi-directional communication (teacher to student, student to teacher and between students).  I am not sure that I will ever settle into a single paradigm. For me, it’s a matter of finding the best path for the moment and taking it.

I don’t have a model as Davies defined it; a scaled-down version of how things work. I’m not entirely sure how I would go about creating one. Perhaps the above problem of communication and its solution are an example of a model for my specific context.

Davies wrote his article in 1978, over 20 years ago. Is it still relevant to the thinking of using technology in teaching and learning, today? Why or why not?

Absolutely. A key problem that Davies (1978) is that education has not taken the opportunity to renew itself, which is a hallmark of organizations on the decline. “Instead of viewing educational technology as an opportunity for renewing educational practice, it has, too often, been conceived as a means of doing what has always been done — only more efficiently” (p. 12). As I mentioned in my comment about colleagues in other departments using paradigms from an archetype 90 years old, there is much relevance to these competing ideas.

The Problem-Solving Archetype, in concert with the T3 approach to technology seems to me to be the best possibility to finding successful solutions to educational problems. This is particularly true of the requirements of flexibility and foresight that come out of the Problem-Solving Archetype. As technologies expand and morph at ever-decreasing intervals, these two characteristics of the technologist will be (continue to be?) in high demand. Without these skills, an education technologist will be quickly left behind.

 

Obj 3.1: Behaviourism

The following information is derived from the online course notes,  “Theories of Learning: Behaviourism”

A psychological theory that emerged in the 1920s. Prior to Behaviorism, learning was considered an internal process and “introspection,” a process in which study participants were asked to reflect on their own thoughts, was used to investigate learning. Behaviourists thought this was bunk because there was no external way to measure it. For Behaviourists, learning happens when there is an observable change in behaviour. Everything internal is irrelevant as it cannot be measured or directly observed.

Behaviourism has a few key assumptions:

• If you can’t directly observe or measure it, it doesn’t count. The things that count are stimuli on an organism and how it responds to that stimuli.
• The mind can’t be studied. Stimuli can go in and responses can come out, but the process is unobservable and unmeasurable, and thus unknowable.
• If behaviour hasn’t changed, learning hasn’t happened.

These assumptions affected education in that learning was believed to have happened if there was an observable change in behaviour. Thus, you teach in such a way as to see changes in how people behave. It’s the only way you can know they’re learning

The sorts of activities that resulted from this thinking included drills and similar practice activities. Programmed learning is the extreme version in which instruction is broken into chunks and sequenced. Programmed learning follows a pre-determined course and reinforces correct responses immediately.

Behaviourism has fallen out of favour as it is seen as overly mechanical and insensitive to human learning needs. There may be appropriate applications for some aspects of behaviourism, so caution is needed before dismissing the paradigm outright.

Questions for Reflection:

What are some of the ways in which the behaviourist principle of reinforcement has been applied to education?

• drill exercises
• practice activities (as in for multiplication tables, basic math priciples)

What are the roles of the teacher and the learner in the behaviourist framework?

What are some of the criticisms of behavioural objectives?

What epistemological tradition (objectivism or subjectivism) do you think underlies the behaviourist view of learning?

Can you think of anything you do as an instructor that is influenced by the behaviourist view of learning?

In what contexts do you think it would be appropriate to use a behaviourist approach to teaching?

In what contexts do you think it would be inappropriate to use a behaviourist approach to teaching?

 

 

References:

Davies, I.K. (1978). Educational Technology: Archetypes, Paradigms and Models. In J.H. Hartley & I.K. Davies (Eds.), Contributions to an Educational Technology, Volume 2. (pp. 9-24). New York: Kogan Page.