Critical Review of Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning
Description of content
Mohamed Ally, in his work, Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning, describes three prominent learning theories: behaviorist, cognitive, and constructivist, and adds to them the emerging learning theory of connectivism. The author discusses the elements of these theories and extrapolates best practices for the implementation of these theories in the design of online learning. The author then proposes a succinct design model for online learning that integrates the four learning theories. The final statement presents a brief summary and states several possible developments for the future of online learning.
Evaluation of structure and organization
At the end of the third paragraph, Ally (2008) clearly states a thesis for the article: discussing theories useful to the design of online learning and a “model for developing online instruction” (p. 16). From this point the author carefully traces a path through the different schools of learning, adding in relevant “Implications for Online Learning” (i.e. p. 20). The theories are presented at several points in the same order, allowing the reader to make clear connections by simply remembering the order they typically appear. This can be helpful in particular when introducing a new idea, such as connectivism, an audience may be unfamiliar with up to this point. The author also uses numbered and bulleted lists to create and organized presentation that would be easy to discuss with others (i.e. what do you think of implication number 4 on page 28?).
Evaluation of readability
Ally writes clearly and concisely, in an easy to understand vernacular. Except for a grammar error (“through the a sequence” p. 36), the writing flows smoothly in a logical progression, building upon basic concepts in order to reach the conclusion. Terms which may be confusing are defined, such as the key term “online learning” (p. 17) and several other terms, such as “metacognition” (p. 29). To increase readability, the author includes several flow chart type figures, which is sensible since flowcharting is a skill with which many instructional designers would be familiar.
Analysis of content
As the first word of the title (“Foundations”) suggests, the author wrote this article for non-experts in the field of distance education, most likely students who would be learning how to apply educational theories. The author refers to numerous studies of both learning theories and online learning. Many of the references are seminal (i.e. Ausubel and Pavlov), while others are more recent vetted works, such as those by Stoyanova and Kommers, Murphy & Cifuentes, and Hirumi. By building upon the framework of these other works, the article allows a student to further investigate their merits. Ally also presents differing viewpoints from among some of the references, such as Bonk and Reynolds’ viewpoint of the importance of the computer itself in online learning versus Kozma’s opposing viewpoint (p. 16). Along these lines, Ally does not promote or exclude a particular theory; the author in fact advocates using them in combination (p. 18, 20).
The article includes many examples and models (i.e Kolb LSI, p. 26, ARCS, p. 28, and Hirumi’s three levels, p. 33) which would prove useful for a reader looking for a practical way to implement the author’s ideas. Best practices for each learning theory are presented in a straightforward manner, almost in a checklist format. And while the guidelines included by the author are in no way exhaustive, they are more than sufficient for the target audience – much more would be overwhelming.
Description of the traditional learning theories and how to apply them to online learning makes up the majority of the essay. Ally’s analysis of the cognitivist school of learning is more thorough than the others. This could imply that the author has a greater interest in cognitive theories, but more likely it is due to the popularity of this school of learning among contemporary scholars. The author’s analysis of the connectivist theory is comparitively short, but this can be attributed to the limited research on this newer theory. Some scholars, such as Verhagen (2006), argue that connectivism is not a learning theory, but that it is a “pedagogical view on education,” which would make it out of place among the other theories (p. 1). Ally likely disagrees with Verhagen’s assessment of connectivism as simply a pedagogical view, since Verhagen’s article pre-dates Ally’s and it is reasonable to suspect that Ally read it while researching this piece. But Ally certainly disagrees with Siemens, the person who proposed connectivism, since Siemens (2005) proposes that it is “no longer sensible” to further modify the three traditional learning theories, while Ally proposes utilizing all four theories in the design of online instruction (p. 4). Ally’s inclusion of connectivism, theory or not, is nevertheless worthwhile in creating a discussion of best practices for designing online instruction, as well as providing additional basis for Ally’s proposed model.
The conclusion of the essay serves as the fulfillment of the second part of the thesis, to suggest “a model for developing online instruction based on appropriate education theory” (p. 18). The author’s model clearly distinguishes between optional (“self-assessment should be provided”) and required (“Learners must be told”) elements (p. 36). Ally includes a visual version of the model, possibly to “accommodate the different learning styles” of those who would read the article (p. 36). While this visual clearly shows the flow of the suggested model, it does not quite align with the content of the model – it may have been better to present the Learner Transfer component on its own, as opposed to within the Learner Activities component (p. 38).
Following the conclusion is a brief summary and several predictions for the future of online learning design. While most of these “Looking Forward” statements are more existing trends than actual predictions, one stands out, that “3D interactive graphics” would be utilized in future online learning programs. The growing Web 3D consortium as well as the emergence of several companies specializing in the production of Web3D makes this by far the most intriguing prediction of this section.
Conclusion
Ally’s article provides a set of practical best practices both within the Schools of Learning section and the model given during the Conclusion. The author provides several points of view, while whetting the reader’s appetite for further investigation of each topic.
References
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.) Theory and practice of online learning, 2nd ed. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm.
Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793.
Mohamed Ally, in his work, Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning, describes three prominent learning theories: behaviorist, cognitive, and constructivist, and adds to them the emerging learning theory of connectivism. The author discusses the elements of these theories and extrapolates best practices for the implementation of these theories in the design of online learning. The author then proposes a succinct design model for online learning that integrates the four learning theories. The final statement presents a brief summary and states several possible developments for the future of online learning.
Evaluation of structure and organization
At the end of the third paragraph, Ally (2008) clearly states a thesis for the article: discussing theories useful to the design of online learning and a “model for developing online instruction” (p. 16). From this point the author carefully traces a path through the different schools of learning, adding in relevant “Implications for Online Learning” (i.e. p. 20). The theories are presented at several points in the same order, allowing the reader to make clear connections by simply remembering the order they typically appear. This can be helpful in particular when introducing a new idea, such as connectivism, an audience may be unfamiliar with up to this point. The author also uses numbered and bulleted lists to create and organized presentation that would be easy to discuss with others (i.e. what do you think of implication number 4 on page 28?).
Evaluation of readability
Ally writes clearly and concisely, in an easy to understand vernacular. Except for a grammar error (“through the a sequence” p. 36), the writing flows smoothly in a logical progression, building upon basic concepts in order to reach the conclusion. Terms which may be confusing are defined, such as the key term “online learning” (p. 17) and several other terms, such as “metacognition” (p. 29). To increase readability, the author includes several flow chart type figures, which is sensible since flowcharting is a skill with which many instructional designers would be familiar.
Analysis of content
As the first word of the title (“Foundations”) suggests, the author wrote this article for non-experts in the field of distance education, most likely students who would be learning how to apply educational theories. The author refers to numerous studies of both learning theories and online learning. Many of the references are seminal (i.e. Ausubel and Pavlov), while others are more recent vetted works, such as those by Stoyanova and Kommers, Murphy & Cifuentes, and Hirumi. By building upon the framework of these other works, the article allows a student to further investigate their merits. Ally also presents differing viewpoints from among some of the references, such as Bonk and Reynolds’ viewpoint of the importance of the computer itself in online learning versus Kozma’s opposing viewpoint (p. 16). Along these lines, Ally does not promote or exclude a particular theory; the author in fact advocates using them in combination (p. 18, 20).
The article includes many examples and models (i.e Kolb LSI, p. 26, ARCS, p. 28, and Hirumi’s three levels, p. 33) which would prove useful for a reader looking for a practical way to implement the author’s ideas. Best practices for each learning theory are presented in a straightforward manner, almost in a checklist format. And while the guidelines included by the author are in no way exhaustive, they are more than sufficient for the target audience – much more would be overwhelming.
Description of the traditional learning theories and how to apply them to online learning makes up the majority of the essay. Ally’s analysis of the cognitivist school of learning is more thorough than the others. This could imply that the author has a greater interest in cognitive theories, but more likely it is due to the popularity of this school of learning among contemporary scholars. The author’s analysis of the connectivist theory is comparitively short, but this can be attributed to the limited research on this newer theory. Some scholars, such as Verhagen (2006), argue that connectivism is not a learning theory, but that it is a “pedagogical view on education,” which would make it out of place among the other theories (p. 1). Ally likely disagrees with Verhagen’s assessment of connectivism as simply a pedagogical view, since Verhagen’s article pre-dates Ally’s and it is reasonable to suspect that Ally read it while researching this piece. But Ally certainly disagrees with Siemens, the person who proposed connectivism, since Siemens (2005) proposes that it is “no longer sensible” to further modify the three traditional learning theories, while Ally proposes utilizing all four theories in the design of online instruction (p. 4). Ally’s inclusion of connectivism, theory or not, is nevertheless worthwhile in creating a discussion of best practices for designing online instruction, as well as providing additional basis for Ally’s proposed model.
The conclusion of the essay serves as the fulfillment of the second part of the thesis, to suggest “a model for developing online instruction based on appropriate education theory” (p. 18). The author’s model clearly distinguishes between optional (“self-assessment should be provided”) and required (“Learners must be told”) elements (p. 36). Ally includes a visual version of the model, possibly to “accommodate the different learning styles” of those who would read the article (p. 36). While this visual clearly shows the flow of the suggested model, it does not quite align with the content of the model – it may have been better to present the Learner Transfer component on its own, as opposed to within the Learner Activities component (p. 38).
Following the conclusion is a brief summary and several predictions for the future of online learning design. While most of these “Looking Forward” statements are more existing trends than actual predictions, one stands out, that “3D interactive graphics” would be utilized in future online learning programs. The growing Web 3D consortium as well as the emergence of several companies specializing in the production of Web3D makes this by far the most intriguing prediction of this section.
Conclusion
Ally’s article provides a set of practical best practices both within the Schools of Learning section and the model given during the Conclusion. The author provides several points of view, while whetting the reader’s appetite for further investigation of each topic.
References
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.) Theory and practice of online learning, 2nd ed. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm.
Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793.