H809-9. Mapping papers onto learning theories...

I have read the introduction to the Conole et al. (2004) paper "Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design" and am now trying to fit (force?) the papers we have read so far on H809 into the table of learning theories presented in this paper. But first, a couple of background notes:

• Their main audience is non-expert e-learning practitioners.
• Their main aim is to demystify the learning theories which underpin research designs to enable practitioners to map relevant tools/resources onto a sound understanding of learning theories. (well, I for one did not feel that they were particularly successful in achieving this aim)
  

Hiltz and Meinke (1989)
I suppose the design of this study reflects an essentially behaviourist orientation, with its strong focus on observable outcomes, but isn't there evidence of cognitive/constructivist theories as well? In my Week 1 notes under the heading 'Views of education and learning', I wrote the following:

• "Education is the structuring of a situation in ways that help SS change, through learning, in intentional (and sometimes unintentional) ways" (432).
• learners as active participants
• collaboration as fundamental to learning; knowledge as subjective, not objective
• SS learn at own pace - SS do not learn what Ts teach
• motivation integral to learning
• social interactionist
• seems at odds with the heavy reliance on quantitative methods

Most of the above notes would, to my mind, suggest social constructivist assumptions, despite the very positivistic design (but am I confounding behaviourism and positivism? perhaps...) As others have pointed out in the forums, the design of this particular study seems more than a little muddled. And Oliver et al. mention that studies may subconsciously promote assumptions that contradict the research design - perhaps this study is a good example of that.

Wegerif and Mercer (1992)

Laurillard (1994)
Emphasising the context of learning so strongly, as she does, suggests a constructivist approach to my mind. But Table 1's descriptions are not really helpful, so this is a provisional answer. Later addition: I have just read some Wikipedia entries on this; I will now go for social constructivism.

Oliver et al. (2007)

Roschelle (1992)
Constructivist? Socially situated? I guess I'm not clearly seeing the difference between the two based on Table 1. The two young girls in the study are engaged in a hands on discovery task and the focus is on the sort of 'interlanguage' the two develop in trying to describe the scientific concepts, which suggests constructivism. In addition, the interaction between the two is vitally important and language is used as a tool to jointly develop knowledge, which would indicate socially situated learning.

* and here I must post my first rant. this was absolutely, positively the most poorly written and presented academic paper I have ever read. recently i came across a writer bemoaning the fact that team researchers, due to time pressure, do not always find time to revise their papers - this would seem to be a case in point. beyond that, it seems the journal editor was either drunk or blind. okay, i am anal to start with, but beyond the annoying visual errors, there were plenty of errors that actually affected the meaning of the sentences. i honestly found about 10 errors per page. this is really unacceptable in a peer-reviewed journal. i can mark students' writing all day and not feel this frustrated...