Résumés
Abstract
The discourse on blended learning must not take away focus on learning by concentrating explicitly on technologies. When learner-centred discussions are incorporated, these may be confined to constructivist pedagogies, as evident through the well-established community of inquiry (CoI) framework. While a few early advances argue for behaviourist pedagogies to underpin the CoI framework in particular, and a plethora of literature supports behaviourist-constructivist interplay for blended learning in general, this study pioneers the proposal of these interactions within the CoI framework for blended learning. It also challenges the prevailing stand-alone socio-constructivist pedagogical design of the CoI framework to deal with the complexities of higher education by adopting a decolonial positionality. In this light, we explain the impact of missing out on behaviourist designs on the CoI framework through the problem of epistemological untenability and that of assumed learning. Having provided the rationale for including behaviourist designs, we then emphasize the behaviourist-constructivist interactions within the framework. This discussion paper contributes to the ongoing dynamic scholarship of the CoI and encourages the research community to empirically explore the positioning of such a pedagogical design within this framework.
Keywords:
- behaviourism,
- blended learning,
- community of inquiry framework,
- constructivism,
- higher education,
- socio-constructivism
Résumé
Le discours sur l’apprentissage hybride ne doit pas détourner l’attention de l’apprentissage en se concentrant explicitement sur les technologies. Lorsque des discussions centrées sur la personne apprenante sont intégrées, elles peuvent se limiter à des pédagogies constructivistes, comme le montre le cadre bien établi de la communauté d’enquête (CE). Alors que quelques avancées précoces plaident en faveur des pédagogies behavioristes pour étayer le cadre de la CE en particulier, et qu’une pléthore de littérature soutient l’interaction behavioriste-constructiviste pour l’apprentissage hybride en général, cette étude est la première à proposer ces interactions dans le cadre de la CE pour l’apprentissage hybride. Elle remet également en question la conception pédagogique socioconstructiviste indépendante qui prévaut dans le cadre de la CE pour traiter les complexités de l’enseignement supérieur en adoptant une position décoloniale. Dans cette optique, nous expliquons l’impact de passer à côté des conceptions behavioristes dans le cadre de la CE à travers le problème de l’insoutenabilité épistémologique et celui de l’apprentissage présumé. Après avoir justifié l’inclusion des conceptions behavioristes, nous mettons l’accent sur les interactions behavioristes-constructivistes au sein du cadre. Cet essai contribue à la recherche dynamique en cours sur la CE et encourage la communauté de recherche à explorer empiriquement le positionnement d’une telle conception pédagogique dans ce cadre.
Mots-clés :
- apprentissage hybride,
- béhaviorisme,
- communauté d’enquête,
- enseignement supérieur,
- constructivisme,
- socioconstructivisme
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 34(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898893
- Ahmad, S., Sultana, N., & Jamil, S. (2020). Behaviorism vs constructivism: A paradigm shift from traditional to alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 7(2), 19–33.
- Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 3–22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ837483.pdf
- Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
- Anderson, T. (2017). How communities of inquiry drive teaching and learning in the digital age. Contact North, 1, 1–6. https://teachonline.ca/tools-trends/how-communities-inquiry-drive-teaching-and-learning-digital-age
- Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
- Annand, D. (2019). Limitations of the community of inquiry framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(2), 1–15. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1242715.pdf
- Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73–85. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842689.pdf
- Artopoulos, A. (2023). Labyrinths of platformization of education in the Global South (and beyond). In C. Cobo & A. Rivas (Eds.), The new digital education policy landscape (pp. 147–164). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003373018
- Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (2013). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17–34). Routledge.
- Blanchette, J., & Kanuka, H. (1999). Applying constructivist learning principles in the virtual classroom. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 1999-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 434-439).
- Brandstedt, L. (2023). Time to give up learner centred pedagogy. Proceedings of the 16th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Spain (pp. 1569–1578). https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2023.0484
- Brown, M. (2021). What are the main trends in online learning? A helicopter view of possible futures. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16(2). http://asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/605
- Brown, S., Saxena, D., & Wall, P. J. (2023). Data collection in the global south: Practical, methodological, and philosophical considerations. Information Technology for Development, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2023.2185581
- Campbell, A., Craig, T., & Collier-Reed, B. (2020). A framework for using learning theories to inform ‘growth mindset’ activities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1562118
- Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 years of the community of inquiry framework. TechTrends, 64(4), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
- Chou, C. C. (2020). Reviving the theoretical relevancy of blended learning: An integrated approach to vocational competency.
- Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007013
- Cook, D. A. (1993). Behaviorism evolves. Educational Technology, 33(10), 62–77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428114
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Cronjé, J. (2000). Paradigms lost: Towards integrating objectivism and constructivism. ITForum Paper, 48.
- Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9605-1
- Cronje, J. (2020). Towards a new definition of blended learning. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 18(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.2.001
- Cronjé, J. C. (2022). Blending behaviourism and constructivism: A case study in support of a new definition of blended learning. Progressio, 41(1). https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-progress-v41-n1-a14
- Cullen, J., Hadjivassilio, K., Hamilton, E., Kelleher, J., Sommerld, E., & Stern, E. (2002). Review of current pedagogic research and practice in the fields of post-compulsory education and lifelong learning. The Tavistock Institute.
- Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-learning, 1(4), 1–4. https://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=263985
- Elander, K., & Cronje, J. C. (2016). Paradigms revisited: A quantitative investigation into a model to integrate objectivism and constructivism in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9424-y
- Elen, J. (2017). Implications: Cherishing the middle ground. In L. Lin & J. M. Spector (Eds.), The sciences of learning and instructional design (pp. 79–87). Routledge.
- Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice, 2(1), 8–33. https://gchallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Constructivism.pdf
- Garrison, D. R. (2012). Article review – Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 250–253. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1184/2099
- Garrison, D. R. (2015). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740751
- Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
- Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
- Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001
- Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
- Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
- Gregory, M. (1999). A behavioral pedagogy for the community of inquiry. Analytic Teaching, 19(1). https://journal.viterbo.edu/index.php/at/article/view/690
- Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
- Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434
- Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning: Constructing order out the chaos in the literature. International Journal of Radical Pedagogy, 1(2). http://hdl.handle.net/2149/728
- Kerssens, N., & van Dijck, J. (2023). The platformization of primary education in the Netherlands. In C. Cobo & A. Rivas (Eds.), The new digital education policy landscape (pp. 9–28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003373018
- Khan, A. S., & Nawaz, A. (2010). Digital literacy: The criteria for being educated in information society. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 10(10), 175–191. https://computerresearch.org/index.php/computer/article/view/1032
- Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 144–157). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878842
- Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.423.0462
- Lammassaari, H., Hietajärvi, L., Lonka, K., Chen, S., & Tsai, C. C. (2021). Teachers’ epistemic beliefs and reported practices in two cultural contexts. Educational Studies, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.2000369
- Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840272
- Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961322
- Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning, 26(1), 325–359. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1340511
- Masiero, S. (2022). Should we still be doing ICT4D research? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 88(5), e12215. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12215
- Milad, M. (2019). The pedagogical development of blended learning. In S. Hidri (Ed.), English language teaching research in the Middle East and North Africa: Multiple perspectives (pp. 609–635). https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-98533-6
- Ojeaga, I. J., & Agbi, A. (2015). Constructivism: An alternative framework for academic excellence in office technology and management programme in tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 22(1), 19–26. https://www.globalacademicgroup.com/journals/nact/Ibhade%20Joy%20Ojeaga.pdf
- Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296709
- Sareen, S., & Mandal, S. (2024). Challenges of blended learning in higher education across global north-south: A systematic and integrative literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101011
- Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. The Higher Education Academy, 4(2), 24–250. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=5ae9c9bc52122aa77cb36e7add118741c0721672
- Shield, G. (2000). A critical appraisal of learning technology using information and communication technologies. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 71–79. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ609295
- Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Spector, J. M. (2004). Instructional technology and the learning sciences: Multiple communities and political realities. Educational Technology, 44(3), 47–49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428909
- Stoddard, J. D. (2010). The roles of epistemology and ideology in teachers’ pedagogy with historical ‘media’. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903475694
- Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In Payne, C. R. (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–47). IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004
- Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50–60. https://scholars.ln.edu.hk/en/publications/constructivism-instructional-design-and-technology-implications-f
- Terhart, E. (2003). Constructivism and teaching: a new paradigm in general didactics? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270210163653
- The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991). Some thoughts about constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 16–18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44401692
- UC Berkeley. (2021). Learning: Theory and research. Graduate Student Instructor: Teaching & Resource Center. https://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-contents/learning-theory-research/
- United Nations. (2022). Global south countries (Group of 77 and China). Finance Center for South-South Cooperation. http://www.fc-ssc.org/en/partnership_program/south_south_countries
- Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. https://purnima-valiathan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Blended-Learning-Models-2002-ASTD.pdf
- Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press.
- Vaughan, N. D., Dell, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2023). Principles of blended learning: Shared metacognition and communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press.
- Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362. https://www.vrasidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/continuum.pdf
- Weegar, M. A., & Pacis, D. (2012). A comparison of two theories of learning--behaviorism and constructivism as applied to face-to-face and online learning. In Proceedings e-leader conference, Manila. https://www.g-casa.com/conferences/manila/papers/Weegar.pdf
- White-Clark, R., DiCarlo, M., & Gilchriest, S. N. (2008). "Guide on the side": An instructional approach to meet mathematics standards. The High School Journal, 91(4), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.0.0000
- Whitelock, D., & Jelfs, A. (2003). Editorial: Journal of Educational Media special issue on blended learning. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 99–100.
- Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5–23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ515158
- Wolsey, T. D., & Fisher, D. (2009). Learning to predict and predicting to learn: Cognitive strategies and instructional routines. Allyn & Bacon.
- Yu, Z., & Li, M. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of community of inquiry in online learning contexts over twenty-five years. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11669–11688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11081-w