Influences of Theory on Educational Technology

Bruce W. Jones

EDT5510

March 7, 1999

West Texas A&M Univerrsity

 

 

 

The history of education and education technology begins with the dawn of man. The psychology of education however, started with Plato and Aristotle (Anders, 1989). Plato believed that knowledge was inherited from a person’s ancestor and all that was required was a little experiential learning to bring it forth. This was an early hint at the current theory of Constructivism. Since the time of Plato many people have set forth to understand and to formulate ideas about how children learn. In the 1600’s John Locke developed a theory of testing for the validity of knowledge and John Comenius established that children learn better from experience. The Frenchman, Jean Jacques Rousseau, supported this educational approach in 1762 with a work entitled Emile. Rousseau proposed that education should follow natural inclination impulses and feelings (learning styles). Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi in the late 1700’s put Rousseau’s theories into practice and thus became the first applied educational psychologist. Herbert Spencer and Johann Friedrich Herbart became the first to apply science and systematic theory to the study of pedagogy. Based on the theories of Herbart Wilhelm; Wundt founded a laboratory for the study of learning and from this lab theories of consciousness and explanations about association were put forth. This is essentially the beginnings of the modern constructivist movement. Around the turn of the century John Dewey and Edward Thorndike attacked this mode of education with individual yet complimentary theories. Dewey’s theory of functionalism encouraged mental testing and stressed studies of adaptive behavior. Thorndike supported functionalism and added a stimulus-response component and renamed it connectionist. This theory became an educational caveat for the next fifty years.

In the early twentieth century a new movement in the field of Psychology was being felt in educational research, behaviorism (Bijou, 1995). This is a theory proposed by J.B. Watson and based on the works of Pavlov and Bekhterev, two Russian psychologists who developed an animal training model known as stimulus-response. This model later inspired

B.F. Skinner to carry this work further and establish a strong footing for the behaviorist movement in education. In the 1920’s, Sidney L. Pressey developed the first teaching machine (Markle and Tieman, 1996). These machines, built on the principles of behaviorism, offered instant feedback to the student and allowed them to work with the questions until the answers were learned. Skinner popularized the concept of the learning machine in the ‘50’s and indicated the teacher could be freed up significantly to facilitate the learning of slower students. This is a theme that returns to the field of Educational Technology over and over in many future discussions. Several concurrent technologies and historical events began to appear that led education researchers and theorists into a frenzy of discovery and application.

The rapid onset of World War II required the equally rapid training of large numbers of military and civilian personnel in non-traditional jobs. Civilian occupations usually filled by highly skilled and experienced labor were now being filled with a largely untrained and inexperienced work force. The success of these training models led many educators and psychologists to publish their findings on learning theory research based in a large part on the lessons and problems of this massive training effort. This proliferation of theory has added to the confusion of Educational Technology. Reigeluth and Squire (1998) attempted to bring some order to the problem by classifying the theories into seven sets based on the main focus of the representative theories (see table 1). Through this work Reigeluth and Squire are attempting to bring order to the use of theory in the design process, and in trying to establish that order suggest that more theories are needed. The conclusion for this paper indicates that that no matter the basis of the original theory, ‘nearly every theory stresses deep understandings over rote, decontextualized performances.’ There is also a general feeling that the paradigm of the future is going to be constructivist. However, with so many different theories the question becomes which one, or ones, to use when designing an educational offering or consulting on the development of a technology package for a school district.

Phillip Duchastel (1998) establishes three facets for defining and solving the problem of what he calls the islandship of education and design theory. These three facets are 1) The political facet; who decides what is to be taught, 2) The psychological facet; the relationships of learning, 3) The sociological facet; a lack of critical comparisons of theories. The main focus of this discussion is to establish some form of standardization of educational theories and to alleviate the guesswork of deciding which theory to use under what circumstances. To do this Duchastel establishes 6 basic guidelines based on the three facets (see table 2). In his conclusion he states that, "In the end only one theory is viable, all others becoming elements within it." This statement appears to be a summation of the two separate papers (Reigeluth, Squires and Duchastel). However, Brent Wilson (1999) feels that theory, like good music and literature, is something to appreciate aesthetically not use practically. He bases this on studies that were ongoing during the ‘70s and ‘80s. In these novice-expert studies he reports a general disregard for the use of theory that indicated a far more complex process being utilized by Instructional Design professionals. With a re-emergence of Constructivist thought in the ‘90s (Wilson calls it the Constructivist Revolution), a new impetus on theory and theory utilization becomes evident. Accordingly focus has shifted from "quasi-scientific ID theories" to "a focus on the thoughts and reflections of designers, teachers, and students." To address this apparent chaos in theory vs. practice the concept of Grounded Design has been introduced. Grounded Design states that any design should be ‘grounded’ in a theory … any theory so long as the theory can be validated. The key becomes consistency. If a course of design were decided to be objectivist then "following a Gangé-style approach" would be the design of choice. Using this as a format Wilson establishes four rules for Grounded Design:

    1. Based on a defensible theoretical framework
    2. Consistent with research validating that theoretical framework
    3. Generalizable to other cases and situations
    4. Empirically validated through successive tryout and revision

Wilson goes on to relate choosing an educational theory with choosing a political party – you chose the position that seems to suit you best. This leads to the question, "How should practitioners make use of theory?" Wilson answers this by quoting Hannafin et. al. (1997),

…. [E]ffective instructional design is possible only if the developer

has reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design

…. [it] emerges from the deliberate application of some particular theory of learning. (pp 101 – 102, cited in Hannafin et al., 1997)

In conclusion, the study of theory in educational design becomes, in my opinion, two fold. The first is the study of theory to gain an insight into the process and historical foundations of Instructional Technology/Educational Technology. Through this process the practitioner and student can gain insight and establish a personal philosophy of design that works for them. The second is as an anchor that allows the designer to find some kind of direction when a design problem is encountered. In the discussion I have tried to set a historical precedence for the use of theory in education. From Plato to Reigeluth, Wilson, and Duchastel the process of learning and how best to deliver information to enhance learning has been of major concern. With the emergence of the information age and the computer as a teaching tool, the theories and practices of Educational Technology have become of paramount importance. In a way I agree with Wilson that theory for theories sake is a great intellectual exercise. I feel that the ideal of Grounded Design is a concept that needs to be approached seriously as a paradigm for consolidation and theory choice. When Duchastel started the original discussion on the ITForum, there was a general feeling that there should be an attempt to formulate a unified theory to cover all aspects and incidents of educational design. The general discussions that followed indicated that this was an impossibility due to the specific nature of each of the theories and the egos that were involved. Many of the original researchers founded schools and research clinics based on their particular views. As an example there is David Miller’s ID2 and Howard Gardener’s MI-Institute each based on the theories they developed. Knowledge of theory is essential to the development and training of an Educational Technologist but it should not be the overriding concern of the designer. As Wilson puts it:

"A theory-centered approach would put theory in charge, and the practitioner

subordinate to the ideas."

In my opinion Wilson’s Grounded Design approach is, at the present time, the best mode and

method for the design of an educational offering.

References

    1. Anders, M.D. 1990.The History of Educational Psychology http://snycorva.cortland.edu/~andersmd/history.html [Available]

    2. Bijou, Sidney W., Ph.D. 1995, Behaviorism ENCARTA ’95

    3. Duchastel, P. 1998, Prolegomena to a theory of instructional design, work for submission to Journal of Interactive Media in Education., topic for discussion on ITForum.

    4. Hannafin,M., (1997). The case for grounded learning systems design: What the literature suggests about effective teaching, learning, and technology. As quoted by Phillip Duchastel.

    5. Markle, S.M. and Tieman, P. W. , (1995), Teaching Machines ENCARTA ’95

      6.  

    6. Reigeluth, C.M., Squire, K. (1998), Emerging work on the new paradigm of instructional theories, Educational Technology July-August 1998, pp. 41 – 47

      7.  

    7. Wilson, B. 1999 The Dangers of Theory-Based Design: a paper for discussion on ITForum, http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson [Available]

 

 

Table 1.

EMERGING INSTRUCTIONAL THEORIES

SET

FOCUS

REPRESENTATIVE THEORY
  1. Understanding

    2.  

  2. Problem-based learning

    3.  

  3. Community of Learners

    4.  

  4. Higher-order thinking skills

    5.  

     

  5. Diversity of others

    6.  

     

     

  6. The Psychomotor Domain

 

 

 

7. The Affective Domain

Beyond information

 

Learner as an active problem solver

Socially constructed nature of knowledge

Critical evaluation of information and regulation of ones own learning.

 

Miscellaneous theories, do not fit the regular mold of theories.

 

Physical skills and their importance in learning.

 

 

The fostering of personal, emotional, attitudinal, social, or spiritual development.

Multiple Approaches to Understanding, H.Gardener

Learning by Doing, R.C. Schank, T.R. Berman, and K.A. Macpherson.

Collaborative Problem Solving, L.M. Nelson

A Design Theory for Classroom Instruction in Self-Regulated Learning, L. Corno and J. Randi

Instructional Transaction Theory (ITT): Instructional Design Based on Knowledge Objects, M.D. Merrill

The Development of Physical Skills: Instruction in the Psychomotor Domain, A.J. Romiszowski

Self-Science: Emotional Intelligence for Children, K. Stone-McCown and A.H. McCormick

 

 

Table 2.

PRESCRIPTIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN THEORIZING

Prescription

Rationale
  1. Determine the nature of learning and explicate it.

    2.  

     

     

  2. Characterize the interaction space leading to learning

    3.  

  3. Subjugate all content to the instructional function.

    4.  

     

  4. Keep out of curriculum decisions.

    5.  

     

  5. Attempt to devise rules of instruction.

 

 

6. Situate and confront

Given the ragged state of learning theory today, it is essential for the instructional design theorist to be somewhat explicit about personal views regarding learning. (from the ITForum discussion: Keep the I out of id.)

Theorizing involves structuring this space (interaction), determining the ingredients and how they relate to one another.

…. [I]nstructional design theory should not provide means of artificially motivating students. Content needs to motivate.

 

The decision of what is to be learned is not the Theorists purpose. Remember; theory is a scientific endeavor NOT an educational one.

Rule forming is essentially a heuristic mechanism that can lead to refinement of one’s views hence greater theoretical utility.

Comparative analyses of one’s ideas in relation to those of competing ideas is the gist of scientific progress.