study
Articles
Building Personalised Functions into Dynamic Content Packaging to Support Individual Learners
27 April 2004
The New Challenges
The use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) to support self-pace e-learning is expanding at an enormously rapid rate. However, these current e-learning systems support online learning through the use of up-to-the minute technology, but often fail to take into considerations learners’ context i.e. learners’ characteristics and level of prior-knowledge.
The use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) to support self-pace e-learning is expanding at an enormously rapid rate. However, these current e-learning systems support online learning through the use of up-to-the minute technology, but often fail to take into considerations learners’ context i.e. learners’ characteristics and level of prior-knowledge.
There is an increasing need to build e-learning systems that delivered just-in time, just-enough personalised learning materials tailored to learners’ requirements and enabling them to improve their performance and achieve effectively their personal learning goals.
These new requirements from learners for using LMSs raise challenging issues in instructional design for courseware.
1. How the individual learner’s learning requirements can be captured for packing the learning material;
2. How the appropriate learning objects can be selected and presented based on the learner’s requirements;
3. How learners’ participation during the learning of the materials can be monitored;
4. How the required support can be provided by the system.
We address these issues by applying a method for personalised instructional design (MPID). The main aim of MPID is to build a software component through which the individual learners can express their learning requirements, e.g., a way they prefer a presentation for the learning materials. This method has been experimented in one of our existing courses in the University of Reading
Learning as knowledge construction process
It is recognised in education that learning is a process of knowledge construction. This view is supported by major learning theories such as Constructivism and Semiotics. Constructivism claims that learners construct their own reality, or at least interpret it based upon their perceptions or experiences. Constructivists emphasise the role of the learners, who take on increasing responsibility for their learning.
Semiotics, as a discipline of the study of all kind of signs (e.g. verbal language, pictures, literature, motion pictures, theatre, body language, and more), has a strong influence on the way we understand the world which we live in and the way we conduct our work. It is difficult to assume for all learners involved that they will derive the same association between a given object and a sign, as it involves issues such as meaning, cognition, behaviour, culture and social context.
Adopting semiotics and constructivist paradigm would have a tremendous impact on designing e-learning environments. An e-learning environment should:
· facilitate learners to interpret the multiple perspectives of domain context;
· guide learners to conduct and manage their personalised learning activities;
· encourage collaborative and cooperative learning for critical thinking and problem-solving.
These two paradigms raise some challenging issues in e-learning on how individual learners can be facilitated and supported effectively during the learning process. We believe that an understanding of individual learners’ learning behaviour and styles is one of the fundamental functions which should be built in learning management systems.
A case study: - Identifying learning styles and assessing prior knowledge for a programming course at the university of Reading
A learning style is simply a preference for the method by which an individual learns and remembers what he or she learned. Everybody has a preferred learning style. Knowing and understanding our learning style helps us to learn more effectively.
In addition, Instructional designers need to identify clusters of learners with similar patterns for perceiving and interpreting situations in order to adjust learning environments for each cluster.
There are many different classifications of learning style found in the literature. The most common and widely used is the perceptual style which refers to the preferred sensory modality for receiving information. Generally, learners prefer a Visual (learn through seeing), Auditory (learn through listening), or kinaesthetic (learn through touching, doing and moving) mode, although most use a combination of perceptual strategies for selecting and processing information. For the instructional designer, what matters is to provide key concepts in more than one modality, with learner control built in.
From the way learners respond to information, they can be categorized as Activists, Reflective, Sensing and Intuitive learners. Activist learners tend to retain and understand information best by doing something active with it--discussing or applying it or explaining it to others where as Reflective learners prefer to think about it first. Sensing learners tend to learning facts whereas intuitive learners often prefer discovering possibilities and relationships.
In addition, learners can be grouped into two other categories depending on the way they prefer to access information or learning materials in this case. These are sequential and global learners. Sequential learners as the name suggests, prefer to learn materials in a sequential manner by following logical stepwise paths in finding solutions whereas Global learners prefer to be presented with the overall big picture of the problem to solve at first and then work they way through it randomly.
We identify the above different clusters of learners using a multi-dimensional model (see Figure 1) with Dimension 1 (sequential and global learners); Dimension 2 (Activists, Reflectors, Sensing, and Intuitive learners); and Dimension 3 (Visual, Auditory, and Tactile).
Figure 1
The combined results from these three dimensions help to capture learner’s preferences. Instructional designers can then select and configure the learning content and delivery method according to their learning needs. For instance, designing for Visual learners would require additional visual aids such as graphs, animations, picture or charts. Auditory learners would rather have sound files (for instance an audio tape of a lecturer explaining difficult concepts) or video with sound. Tactile learners would be satisfied with content such as “drag and drop” quizzes where they will need to use objects on screen as part of their learning experience.
However, these three dimensions do not indicate the learner’s past experience in terms of prior knowledge. If one’s prior knowledge is known before the learning materials are packaged, learning would become more interesting and effective. Therefore, prior knowledge has been considered as Dimension 4 to figure 1.
A learner’s profile is created by MPID to capture both the learner’s learning styles and prior-knowledge. We have devised a mechanism to identify the individual learner’s learning style and assessing his/hers prior knowledge for formulating parameters for the optimisation and personalisation algorithms. There are two main steps to carry out the analysis process.
The first step involves a design of questionnaires by which the learner’s learning preferences can be identified. As figure 1 exemplified, there are three dimensional factors which influence the presentation and sequencing of learning materials. However, the organisation of learning materials is somehow incomplete because of the lack of learners’ level of background knowledge. This is where the fourth Dimension plays a vital role in assuring that adequate, relevant and personalised learning materials are presented to learners based on their prior-knowledge (this is the knowledge or skills that learners possess before interacting with learning materials).
MPID is conceived as a solution to the deployment of an IT course entitled “C Programming Language” and this specific course is used to demonstrate how learners’ prior-knowledge can be extracted and later on used in the pre-test. Three different levels of prior-knowledge were identified. These levels are: little prior-knowledge, enough prior-knowledge and good prior-knowledge.
Each level of prior-knowledge has a specific content level associated with it and will determine what instructional strategy to adopt during the delivery of the learning material. The following are learners’ Prior-knowledge characteristics using the “C programming” course as an example:
· Learners with “Little” Prior-knowledge: These learners need help, guidance and support from the instructor. They have a little level of autonomy. The learning materials should be organised and presented in a step by step guided manner.
· Learners with “Enough” Prior-knowledge: This group of learners require some flexibility during the learning process and have some level of autonomy. They understand the basics idea about the subjects and do not entirely rely on the instructor.
· Learners with “Good” Prior-knowledge: These learners have a high level of autonomy during the learning process and require more flexibility to skip certain parts of materials as they have the knowledge and experience from other programming languages.
Discussion and future work
MPID takes the four dimensional factors to determine the learners’ requirements on personalised learning materials. A small scale of experiment has been carried out in our C programming language course. A prototype system has been developed that can establish the learner’s level of competence and preferred styles of learning. The prototype will then dynamically create a personalised set of learning material that can be used to support the individual learner. MPID will be piloted in many other courses across the university. The experience and feedback on the use of this method from both learners and instructors will be systematically acquired to establish the best practice patterns.Figure 1
These new requirements from learners for using LMSs raise challenging issues in instructional design for courseware.
1. How the individual learner’s learning requirements can be captured for packing the learning material;
2. How the appropriate learning objects can be selected and presented based on the learner’s requirements;
3. How learners’ participation during the learning of the materials can be monitored;
4. How the required support can be provided by the system.
We address these issues by applying a method for personalised instructional design (MPID). The main aim of MPID is to build a software component through which the individual learners can express their learning requirements, e.g., a way they prefer a presentation for the learning materials. This method has been experimented in one of our existing courses in the University of Reading
Learning as knowledge construction process
It is recognised in education that learning is a process of knowledge construction. This view is supported by major learning theories such as Constructivism and Semiotics. Constructivism claims that learners construct their own reality, or at least interpret it based upon their perceptions or experiences. Constructivists emphasise the role of the learners, who take on increasing responsibility for their learning.
Semiotics, as a discipline of the study of all kind of signs (e.g. verbal language, pictures, literature, motion pictures, theatre, body language, and more), has a strong influence on the way we understand the world which we live in and the way we conduct our work. It is difficult to assume for all learners involved that they will derive the same association between a given object and a sign, as it involves issues such as meaning, cognition, behaviour, culture and social context.
Adopting semiotics and constructivist paradigm would have a tremendous impact on designing e-learning environments. An e-learning environment should:
· facilitate learners to interpret the multiple perspectives of domain context;
· guide learners to conduct and manage their personalised learning activities;
· encourage collaborative and cooperative learning for critical thinking and problem-solving.
These two paradigms raise some challenging issues in e-learning on how individual learners can be facilitated and supported effectively during the learning process. We believe that an understanding of individual learners’ learning behaviour and styles is one of the fundamental functions which should be built in learning management systems.
A case study: - Identifying learning styles and assessing prior knowledge for a programming course at the university of Reading
A learning style is simply a preference for the method by which an individual learns and remembers what he or she learned. Everybody has a preferred learning style. Knowing and understanding our learning style helps us to learn more effectively.
In addition, Instructional designers need to identify clusters of learners with similar patterns for perceiving and interpreting situations in order to adjust learning environments for each cluster.
There are many different classifications of learning style found in the literature. The most common and widely used is the perceptual style which refers to the preferred sensory modality for receiving information. Generally, learners prefer a Visual (learn through seeing), Auditory (learn through listening), or kinaesthetic (learn through touching, doing and moving) mode, although most use a combination of perceptual strategies for selecting and processing information. For the instructional designer, what matters is to provide key concepts in more than one modality, with learner control built in.
From the way learners respond to information, they can be categorized as Activists, Reflective, Sensing and Intuitive learners. Activist learners tend to retain and understand information best by doing something active with it--discussing or applying it or explaining it to others where as Reflective learners prefer to think about it first. Sensing learners tend to learning facts whereas intuitive learners often prefer discovering possibilities and relationships.
In addition, learners can be grouped into two other categories depending on the way they prefer to access information or learning materials in this case. These are sequential and global learners. Sequential learners as the name suggests, prefer to learn materials in a sequential manner by following logical stepwise paths in finding solutions whereas Global learners prefer to be presented with the overall big picture of the problem to solve at first and then work they way through it randomly.
We identify the above different clusters of learners using a multi-dimensional model (see Figure 1) with Dimension 1 (sequential and global learners); Dimension 2 (Activists, Reflectors, Sensing, and Intuitive learners); and Dimension 3 (Visual, Auditory, and Tactile).
Figure 1The combined results from these three dimensions help to capture learner’s preferences. Instructional designers can then select and configure the learning content and delivery method according to their learning needs. For instance, designing for Visual learners would require additional visual aids such as graphs, animations, picture or charts. Auditory learners would rather have sound files (for instance an audio tape of a lecturer explaining difficult concepts) or video with sound. Tactile learners would be satisfied with content such as “drag and drop” quizzes where they will need to use objects on screen as part of their learning experience.
However, these three dimensions do not indicate the learner’s past experience in terms of prior knowledge. If one’s prior knowledge is known before the learning materials are packaged, learning would become more interesting and effective. Therefore, prior knowledge has been considered as Dimension 4 to figure 1.
A learner’s profile is created by MPID to capture both the learner’s learning styles and prior-knowledge. We have devised a mechanism to identify the individual learner’s learning style and assessing his/hers prior knowledge for formulating parameters for the optimisation and personalisation algorithms. There are two main steps to carry out the analysis process.
The first step involves a design of questionnaires by which the learner’s learning preferences can be identified. As figure 1 exemplified, there are three dimensional factors which influence the presentation and sequencing of learning materials. However, the organisation of learning materials is somehow incomplete because of the lack of learners’ level of background knowledge. This is where the fourth Dimension plays a vital role in assuring that adequate, relevant and personalised learning materials are presented to learners based on their prior-knowledge (this is the knowledge or skills that learners possess before interacting with learning materials).
MPID is conceived as a solution to the deployment of an IT course entitled “C Programming Language” and this specific course is used to demonstrate how learners’ prior-knowledge can be extracted and later on used in the pre-test. Three different levels of prior-knowledge were identified. These levels are: little prior-knowledge, enough prior-knowledge and good prior-knowledge.
Each level of prior-knowledge has a specific content level associated with it and will determine what instructional strategy to adopt during the delivery of the learning material. The following are learners’ Prior-knowledge characteristics using the “C programming” course as an example:
· Learners with “Little” Prior-knowledge: These learners need help, guidance and support from the instructor. They have a little level of autonomy. The learning materials should be organised and presented in a step by step guided manner.
· Learners with “Enough” Prior-knowledge: This group of learners require some flexibility during the learning process and have some level of autonomy. They understand the basics idea about the subjects and do not entirely rely on the instructor.
· Learners with “Good” Prior-knowledge: These learners have a high level of autonomy during the learning process and require more flexibility to skip certain parts of materials as they have the knowledge and experience from other programming languages.
Discussion and future work
MPID takes the four dimensional factors to determine the learners’ requirements on personalised learning materials. A small scale of experiment has been carried out in our C programming language course. A prototype system has been developed that can establish the learner’s level of competence and preferred styles of learning. The prototype will then dynamically create a personalised set of learning material that can be used to support the individual learner. MPID will be piloted in many other courses across the university. The experience and feedback on the use of this method from both learners and instructors will be systematically acquired to establish the best practice patterns.
Figure 1Articles
Are you a Technocrat? A Reformist? Or a Holist?
29 April 2004
This article summarises the paper "The Impact of ICT on Education: the three opposed paradigms, the lacking discourse", written by Roni Aviram and Deborah Talmi.
In that paper, the authors analyse and map out a large number of views on the computerisation of education and identify three clusters of approaches that differ on the most basic assumptions regarding the integration of ICT and education. These approaches live "side by side", largely ignoring each other and not engaging in any meaningful discussion. The authors claim that, given the very doubtful results of the "computerisation of education" up until now, such ongoing discussion is vital for any mindful and successful policy in the future.
It is possible to group the views that guide educationalists and experts when dealing with the integration of ICT and education into three clusters of views. These clusters are far from arbitrary – they reflect three very different starting points and perspectives for viewing the "merger" of ICT and education. The clusters represent three paradigms. We have chosen to call these paradigms, without hiding our biases, the Technocrat, the Reformist, and the Holistic.
1. The Technocratic paradigm:
The Technocratic paradigm characterises those who avoid any discussion about the nature of ICT, its desirability or the extent schooling should or will change as a consequence of the integration of ICT and education. They take the ICT revolution as given, unavoidable and as consisting mainly of necessary instrumental and behaviourist changes ("working with computers or the Internet"), take schools as a given, ignore the issue of the desired or predicted results of the "meeting" between the forces of ICT and education, and refer only to "technocratic aims" as the proportion of students per computer, or the location of computers in schools, or the nature of the connection to the Internet.
2. The Reformist paradigm:
The Reformist paradigm characterises those who see ICT as a tool that can assist in promoting the "right" didactics. The most fashionable buzzwords that are mentioned in this context are: "interdisciplinary", "constructivist" and "collaborative learning". Adherents to this view conceive the ICT revolution as consisting of more than just new instruments and behaviours; they rather see it as encouraging a certain kind of attitude to knowledge and learning that supports constructive leaning (usually without feeling the need to sustain this view - in many cases it is presented as an axiom).
3. The Holistic paradigm:
The Holistic paradigm characterises those that, unlike the educationalists and writers belonging to the previous two paradigms, usually present an explicit set of assertions regarding the socio-cultural situation and the defining impact ICT has on it (cultural approach). They also have an opinion as to the desired values that should guide educational decision making (ideological approach). Not only do they aspire to have comprehensive theories and clear recommendations for the education system, they do not evade discussing the theories of their rivals (unlike the two previous groups). Included in this group are those who start from cultural-ideological approaches. Their attitude is either conservative (e.g. Postman, 1995) or radical and extremely radical (e.g. Aviram & Comay, 2000; Kristmundson et al., 2000).
We call these three clusters of perspectives mind-frames, and the proposed or already-implemented policies they entail towards ICT and education "paradigms" because they differ on fundamental issues. To better understand the opposed views let us take a look below the surface, at the suppositions each of these groups make about the worlds of ICT and education. As we will see, their suppositions about these worlds are different and to a large extent contradictory.
Suppositions underlying the three paradigms
Concerning the world of ICT, the upholders of the three above paradigms give (mostly tacitly) opposed answers to the four following questions concerning the defining nature of the ICT revolution, its predetermined nature, and its ethical value:
· Is the ICT revolution neutral, that is, does not influence our lives, or is it a defining revolution?
· Is the ICT revolution predetermined or can we influence it?
· Can the ICT revolution be judged ethically?
· If so, is it good or bad?
What are the views of the three emerging paradigms regarding the four above questions?
1. The Technocratic paradigm: ICT as technological "progress"
The Technocratic paradigm is implicitly neutralist. Basically, Technocrats do not treat seriously what other take to be defining influences of the ICT revolution (i.e., the way it is redefining major aspects of our lives), and do not take ICT to have far-reaching impact on who we are. Moreover, this paradigm is also implicitly determinist: its members perceive ICT as a "necessary force" the educational system should adapt to, and the sooner the better. They neither imagine that society could, if it so chose, mould ICT according to its needs and values, nor believe that the education system could channel the influences ICT holds in store. To put it simplistically, they buy computers for schools because there are computers to be bought and they are taken to represent "progress" or what is "in" - without further questions or thoughts.
It is reasonable to assume that adherents to this view would give an implicit negative answer to the third question (concerning our ability to ethically judge the ICT revolution), and that their answer would stem both from their determinism and neutralism concerning ICT and their lack of interest in questions of values and about basic educational goals. Thus, Riffel and Levin (1997) conclude from their field study that "technological imperatives (to have the latest, most powerful computers available) overtake unclear educational objectives…the overall educational focus of [’the schools’] efforts remains unclear."
2. The Reformist paradigm: ICT as promoting constructivist didactics
The Reformist paradigm is based on an understanding of some aspect of the defining nature of ICT, and it is therefore non-neutralist. It is also determinist: its adherents don’t think they or anyone else can, or should, have a say concerning the general development of technology. If there is notion of indeterminism in this view it does not lie in its adherents’ understanding of technology’s relationship to culture but rather in the educational use that can be made of it. Many of them seem to believe that since technology is there, schools must learn to do interesting and desirable things with it. They do ask themselves what educational purpose ICT might and should serve; their answer is that ICT can be used to promote the desired (constructivist) didactics.
From the above it follows that they do presuppose positive answers both to the third and fourth questions. Basically, they too perceive novel technologies to be "advancements", and therefore place an ethical judgement on ICT. Moreover, they find that ICT exerts a positive influence, since it encourages constructivist tendencies, or may potentially do so. This viewpoint underlies the question posed by the editors of the SITES project report in the concluding chapter - "Is our education measuring up with regard to its innovative potential?" (Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999)
3. The Holistic paradigm: ICT as redefining our culture and lives
The third paradigm, the Holistic, is actually defined according to its non-Neutrality, as its upholders treat ICT as a major defining force of culture. Its view is basically indeterminist, although different holists might hold different kinds of indeterminism. Postman (1995) believes it is impossible to preserve the good parts of "American cultural institutions and heritage" while allowing uncontrolled technological development, and advocates serious discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of technology and the way it changes our perception of the world. Aviram & Comay (2000) strive to form "strategies for channelling the inevitable [ICT] revolution in socially and humanely beneficial directions" (italics in the original). One can say that these are two different kinds of indeterminism: strong indeterminism in Postman’s case – since his appeal for social discussion on the fundamentals of the ICT revolution is implicitly based on the supposition that society could change those fundamentals; and soft indeterminism in Aviram and Comay’s case – since here it is assumed that the mere fundamentals are given, but it is possible to channel the processes based on them.
Obviously, authors in this group do not evade discussion of what the desired values of education are. They then judge the ICT revolution in regard to these values - answering the third question positively. As to their judgement, they vary from neutral to negative and positive. Thus, Hermant de Callatay (2000) states that "Technology will have to serve the educational purpose. It should not be the other way around"(- a rather neural judgement). Postman believes ICT is harmful due to its influence on culture at large (Postman, 1992) and on education); While we believe it to have both positive and negative potentials and that its impact on society and on education depends very much on the way we channel its introduction to education (Aviram, 2000).
The differences between the three groups stand out in Table 5, which summarises their presuppositions and the relationships amongst them.
Conclusion: the need for rational discourse
We have described the three general paradigms in the field of ICT and education, and showed that there are substantial differences between the suppositions these paradigms make about the worlds of ICT and education.
The most basic concepts of rationality and science entail that when there are three competing theories in a scientific field, a discussion between their upholders is to be expected. The field of ICT and education is a blatant anomaly when viewed in this light. Essentially, there is no rational discourse between the different views about the introduction of ICT to education. Each of the upholders of the three above paradigms takes a stance, either explicitly or implicitly, but doesn’t seem to be aware of and/or care about the existence of competing theories. Most authors, especially the Technocrats and Reformists, but to some extent the Holists as well, do not have a meta-level perspective on the place of their view within the discourse, which is a cornerstone of rationalistic-scientific conduct (see Aviram & Talmi, unpublished).
The question of the field’s development is not only theoretical, but obviously eminently practical, too. The lack of rational discussion is true not only in regard to the theoretical debate; it is even more evident concerning practice (and how could it be different if practicians don’t have systematic theoretical debate to rely on?). Schools, districts, regions and countries develop and implement ICT products and models of ICT based education, but due to the basic lack of culture of rational discourse and rational development, in too many cases there are no clear threads of ongoing improvement to existing models. As it is, everybody is reinventing the wheel time and time again.
The different implementation policies stemming from the different views have an enormous impact on the future of the educational system and the society at large. Given the history of very ambivalent results (to say the least) in the productive introduction of ICT to education in the last twenty years and the huge investments involved, we cannot afford to continue treating this process in the shallow unmindful manner currently prevalent (we elaborate on this issue in Aviram & Talmi, unpublished). It is vital that we look below the surface of the process of ICT introduction to education, expose the fundaments of the different views that have guided this process until now, and encourage an ongoing rational and critical discussion among them. In order to make well-founded implementation decisions in the field, we must initiate a rational discourse between the different theories and form a model for ICT introduction that reflects the state-of-the-art in the field. HolistsReformistsTechnocratsWill the educational system last in its present shape?NoYes, with some modification of the didactic aspectsNo opinion (positive answer implied)Should the educational system last?Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer)Yes, with some modificationsNo opinion (positive answer implied)Is the ICT revolution neutral or defining? DefiningDefiningNeutralIs the ICT revolution predetermined? Non-determinedPredeterminedPredeterminedCan the ICT revolution be judged ethically?YesYesNo opinionIs the ICT revolution good?Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer)YesNo opinion (positive answer implied)
References:
Aviram, A. & Talmi, D. (in press). "ICT and Education - The Lacking Discourse", in J. Hernandez and Goodson (eds.) Geographics of Educational Change. London: Kluwer.
Riffel, A. & Levin, B. (1997). Schools Coping with the Impact of Information Technology. Educational Management and Administration, 25(1), 51-64.
Pelgrum, W. J. & Anderson, R. E. (Eds.). (1999). ICT and the Emerging Paradigm for Lifelong Learning: A Worldwide Educational Assessment of Infrastructure, Goals and Practices. Enschede, The Netherlands: Printpartners Ipskamp.
It is possible to group the views that guide educationalists and experts when dealing with the integration of ICT and education into three clusters of views. These clusters are far from arbitrary – they reflect three very different starting points and perspectives for viewing the "merger" of ICT and education. The clusters represent three paradigms. We have chosen to call these paradigms, without hiding our biases, the Technocrat, the Reformist, and the Holistic.
1. The Technocratic paradigm:
The Technocratic paradigm characterises those who avoid any discussion about the nature of ICT, its desirability or the extent schooling should or will change as a consequence of the integration of ICT and education. They take the ICT revolution as given, unavoidable and as consisting mainly of necessary instrumental and behaviourist changes ("working with computers or the Internet"), take schools as a given, ignore the issue of the desired or predicted results of the "meeting" between the forces of ICT and education, and refer only to "technocratic aims" as the proportion of students per computer, or the location of computers in schools, or the nature of the connection to the Internet.
2. The Reformist paradigm:
The Reformist paradigm characterises those who see ICT as a tool that can assist in promoting the "right" didactics. The most fashionable buzzwords that are mentioned in this context are: "interdisciplinary", "constructivist" and "collaborative learning". Adherents to this view conceive the ICT revolution as consisting of more than just new instruments and behaviours; they rather see it as encouraging a certain kind of attitude to knowledge and learning that supports constructive leaning (usually without feeling the need to sustain this view - in many cases it is presented as an axiom).
3. The Holistic paradigm:
The Holistic paradigm characterises those that, unlike the educationalists and writers belonging to the previous two paradigms, usually present an explicit set of assertions regarding the socio-cultural situation and the defining impact ICT has on it (cultural approach). They also have an opinion as to the desired values that should guide educational decision making (ideological approach). Not only do they aspire to have comprehensive theories and clear recommendations for the education system, they do not evade discussing the theories of their rivals (unlike the two previous groups). Included in this group are those who start from cultural-ideological approaches. Their attitude is either conservative (e.g. Postman, 1995) or radical and extremely radical (e.g. Aviram & Comay, 2000; Kristmundson et al., 2000).
We call these three clusters of perspectives mind-frames, and the proposed or already-implemented policies they entail towards ICT and education "paradigms" because they differ on fundamental issues. To better understand the opposed views let us take a look below the surface, at the suppositions each of these groups make about the worlds of ICT and education. As we will see, their suppositions about these worlds are different and to a large extent contradictory.
Suppositions underlying the three paradigms
Concerning the world of ICT, the upholders of the three above paradigms give (mostly tacitly) opposed answers to the four following questions concerning the defining nature of the ICT revolution, its predetermined nature, and its ethical value:
· Is the ICT revolution neutral, that is, does not influence our lives, or is it a defining revolution?
· Is the ICT revolution predetermined or can we influence it?
· Can the ICT revolution be judged ethically?
· If so, is it good or bad?
What are the views of the three emerging paradigms regarding the four above questions?
1. The Technocratic paradigm: ICT as technological "progress"
The Technocratic paradigm is implicitly neutralist. Basically, Technocrats do not treat seriously what other take to be defining influences of the ICT revolution (i.e., the way it is redefining major aspects of our lives), and do not take ICT to have far-reaching impact on who we are. Moreover, this paradigm is also implicitly determinist: its members perceive ICT as a "necessary force" the educational system should adapt to, and the sooner the better. They neither imagine that society could, if it so chose, mould ICT according to its needs and values, nor believe that the education system could channel the influences ICT holds in store. To put it simplistically, they buy computers for schools because there are computers to be bought and they are taken to represent "progress" or what is "in" - without further questions or thoughts.
It is reasonable to assume that adherents to this view would give an implicit negative answer to the third question (concerning our ability to ethically judge the ICT revolution), and that their answer would stem both from their determinism and neutralism concerning ICT and their lack of interest in questions of values and about basic educational goals. Thus, Riffel and Levin (1997) conclude from their field study that "technological imperatives (to have the latest, most powerful computers available) overtake unclear educational objectives…the overall educational focus of [’the schools’] efforts remains unclear."
2. The Reformist paradigm: ICT as promoting constructivist didactics
The Reformist paradigm is based on an understanding of some aspect of the defining nature of ICT, and it is therefore non-neutralist. It is also determinist: its adherents don’t think they or anyone else can, or should, have a say concerning the general development of technology. If there is notion of indeterminism in this view it does not lie in its adherents’ understanding of technology’s relationship to culture but rather in the educational use that can be made of it. Many of them seem to believe that since technology is there, schools must learn to do interesting and desirable things with it. They do ask themselves what educational purpose ICT might and should serve; their answer is that ICT can be used to promote the desired (constructivist) didactics.
From the above it follows that they do presuppose positive answers both to the third and fourth questions. Basically, they too perceive novel technologies to be "advancements", and therefore place an ethical judgement on ICT. Moreover, they find that ICT exerts a positive influence, since it encourages constructivist tendencies, or may potentially do so. This viewpoint underlies the question posed by the editors of the SITES project report in the concluding chapter - "Is our education measuring up with regard to its innovative potential?" (Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999)
3. The Holistic paradigm: ICT as redefining our culture and lives
The third paradigm, the Holistic, is actually defined according to its non-Neutrality, as its upholders treat ICT as a major defining force of culture. Its view is basically indeterminist, although different holists might hold different kinds of indeterminism. Postman (1995) believes it is impossible to preserve the good parts of "American cultural institutions and heritage" while allowing uncontrolled technological development, and advocates serious discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of technology and the way it changes our perception of the world. Aviram & Comay (2000) strive to form "strategies for channelling the inevitable [ICT] revolution in socially and humanely beneficial directions" (italics in the original). One can say that these are two different kinds of indeterminism: strong indeterminism in Postman’s case – since his appeal for social discussion on the fundamentals of the ICT revolution is implicitly based on the supposition that society could change those fundamentals; and soft indeterminism in Aviram and Comay’s case – since here it is assumed that the mere fundamentals are given, but it is possible to channel the processes based on them.
Obviously, authors in this group do not evade discussion of what the desired values of education are. They then judge the ICT revolution in regard to these values - answering the third question positively. As to their judgement, they vary from neutral to negative and positive. Thus, Hermant de Callatay (2000) states that "Technology will have to serve the educational purpose. It should not be the other way around"(- a rather neural judgement). Postman believes ICT is harmful due to its influence on culture at large (Postman, 1992) and on education); While we believe it to have both positive and negative potentials and that its impact on society and on education depends very much on the way we channel its introduction to education (Aviram, 2000).
The differences between the three groups stand out in Table 5, which summarises their presuppositions and the relationships amongst them.
Holists | Reformists | Technocrats | |
Will the educational system last in its present shape? | No | Yes, with some modification of the didactic aspects | No opinion (positive answer implied) |
Should the educational system last? | Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer) | Yes, with some modifications | No opinion (positive answer implied) |
Is the ICT revolution neutral or defining? | Defining | Defining | Neutral |
Is the ICT revolution predetermined? | Non-determined | Predetermined | Predetermined |
Can the ICT revolution be judged ethically? | Yes | Yes | No opinion |
Is the ICT revolution good? | Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer) | Yes | No opinion (positive answer implied) |
| TABLE 5: Suppositions |
We have described the three general paradigms in the field of ICT and education, and showed that there are substantial differences between the suppositions these paradigms make about the worlds of ICT and education.
The most basic concepts of rationality and science entail that when there are three competing theories in a scientific field, a discussion between their upholders is to be expected. The field of ICT and education is a blatant anomaly when viewed in this light. Essentially, there is no rational discourse between the different views about the introduction of ICT to education. Each of the upholders of the three above paradigms takes a stance, either explicitly or implicitly, but doesn’t seem to be aware of and/or care about the existence of competing theories. Most authors, especially the Technocrats and Reformists, but to some extent the Holists as well, do not have a meta-level perspective on the place of their view within the discourse, which is a cornerstone of rationalistic-scientific conduct (see Aviram & Talmi, unpublished).
The question of the field’s development is not only theoretical, but obviously eminently practical, too. The lack of rational discussion is true not only in regard to the theoretical debate; it is even more evident concerning practice (and how could it be different if practicians don’t have systematic theoretical debate to rely on?). Schools, districts, regions and countries develop and implement ICT products and models of ICT based education, but due to the basic lack of culture of rational discourse and rational development, in too many cases there are no clear threads of ongoing improvement to existing models. As it is, everybody is reinventing the wheel time and time again.
The different implementation policies stemming from the different views have an enormous impact on the future of the educational system and the society at large. Given the history of very ambivalent results (to say the least) in the productive introduction of ICT to education in the last twenty years and the huge investments involved, we cannot afford to continue treating this process in the shallow unmindful manner currently prevalent (we elaborate on this issue in Aviram & Talmi, unpublished). It is vital that we look below the surface of the process of ICT introduction to education, expose the fundaments of the different views that have guided this process until now, and encourage an ongoing rational and critical discussion among them. In order to make well-founded implementation decisions in the field, we must initiate a rational discourse between the different theories and form a model for ICT introduction that reflects the state-of-the-art in the field. HolistsReformistsTechnocratsWill the educational system last in its present shape?NoYes, with some modification of the didactic aspectsNo opinion (positive answer implied)Should the educational system last?Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer)Yes, with some modificationsNo opinion (positive answer implied)Is the ICT revolution neutral or defining? DefiningDefiningNeutralIs the ICT revolution predetermined? Non-determinedPredeterminedPredeterminedCan the ICT revolution be judged ethically?YesYesNo opinionIs the ICT revolution good?Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer)YesNo opinion (positive answer implied)
| TABLE 5: Suppositions |
Aviram, A. & Talmi, D. (in press). "ICT and Education - The Lacking Discourse", in J. Hernandez and Goodson (eds.) Geographics of Educational Change. London: Kluwer.
Riffel, A. & Levin, B. (1997). Schools Coping with the Impact of Information Technology. Educational Management and Administration, 25(1), 51-64.
Pelgrum, W. J. & Anderson, R. E. (Eds.). (1999). ICT and the Emerging Paradigm for Lifelong Learning: A Worldwide Educational Assessment of Infrastructure, Goals and Practices. Enschede, The Netherlands: Printpartners Ipskamp.