THE DYNAMICS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE IN INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DESIGN

THE DYNAMICS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE IN INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DESIGN A thesis by MARY RUTH DE VILLIERS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in the Department of Teaching and Training Studies of the Faculty of Education University of Pretoria Supervisor: Prof. Dr J.C. Cronje February 2002

ABSTRACT This study investigates the dynamics of theory and practice in the design of instructional systems, learning events and learning environments, with a view to synthesizing an integrated metamodel as a framework to facilitate effective learning in systems which use computer technology as a tutor, tool, or environment. This framework can be used as a design aid by instructional designers and instructor-designers, or as a tool to examine existing learning events from the viewpoint of learning and instructional-design theory. The research contributes to inquiry into learning theory by an in-depth study of the elements of the framework itself, investigating how they function in different contexts and contents. Following an extensive literature survey, the researcher synthesizes a concise integrated framework of learning theories and instructional design practice from the cognitive family. This framework, the Hexa-C Metamodel (HCMm), is generated by a process of criterion-based textual filtration through effectiveness criteria, and encompasses the theoretical concepts of constructivism, cognitive learning and knowledge/skills components, as well as the practical characteristics of creativity, customization and collaborative learning. Using mainly qualitative ethnographic methods within the contexts of action research and development research, case studies are undertaken, applying the elements of the HCMm as an inquiry toolset to investigate three diverse learning events to determine what they reveal about the practice of effective and motivational learning. The learning events - a computer-based practice environment, an Internet-based course, and a fieldwork project were selected due to the researcher s close involvement with each intervention. Information from the evaluations of the learning events is then used to further examine in-depth the theories and characteristics which comprise the tool, as well as their interrelationships and ways of implementing them in domains that differ in context and content - distinguishing particularly between well-structured and ill-structured domains. Key words: Instructional systems design and development; Learning and instructional theory; Evaluation; Inquiry tool; Computer-integrated learning; Cognitive learning; Collaborative learning; Components of knowledge; Constructivism; Creativity; Customization; Domains of learning. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should like to thank: My supervisor, Prof Johannes Cronjé - for sound, insightful and supportive, as well as consistently enthusiastic and encouraging leadership. The institutions and academic departments which gave permission for evaluation of the artifacts, course material and learning events investigated in the case studies: 1. Department of Computer Science, University of South Africa for permission to evaluate the interactive practice environment FRAMES. 2. Department of Teaching and Training Studies, University of Pretoria for permission to evaluate RBO880, the Internet-based course on Computer-Assisted Communication and Management. 3. School of Tourism Management, University of Pretoria for permission to evaluate the Mkambati Project of the Ecotourism course. The academics and students who participated in the three evaluations - for their willing co-operation and contributions. My young-adult children - for valuable practical assistance. In an unusual variation on the parent-offspring relationship, we mutually support one another in our post-graduate studies. Thank you to: Adrian for the CAD charts Dorothy for editorial assistance Gabrielle for doing the bibliography, and to JP for Figure 4.1 Jonathan for the diagrams. My husband André - for assistance, both technical and domestic, in the final stages. I really do appreciate it! Ruth de Villiers September 2001 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One Introduction 1 1.1 Real-world problem statement 2 1.2 Research questions and associated subquestions 2 1.3 Value of research 4 1.4 Research goal and criteria 5 1.4.1 Research goals within educational technology 5 1.4.2 Research goals of this thesis 5 1.4.3 Field of investigation 6 1.4.4 Selection criteria 7 1.4.5 Motivation for the selection criteria 8 1.5 Research methods 9 1.5.1 Research methods for educational technology 9 1.5.2 Research methods used in this thesis 9 1.6 Limitations and deliminations of the study 10 1.6.1 View of instructional systems design and instructional systems 10 1.6.2 Domain of the study and its literature 11 1.6.3 Research perspectives of the study 11 1.6.4 Technology in this study 11 1.7 Research design 12 1.7.1 Research design in this thesis 12 1.7.2 Development research 13 1.7.3 Development research in this study 14 1.7.4 Action research 15 1.7.5 Action research in this study 16 1.8 Structure and chapters of this thesis 17 1.8.1 Structure and interrelationships 17 1.8.2 Development of the reasoning 19 1.8.3 Content of the chapters 20 iv

Chapter Two Theory Learning and instructional theory 22 2.1 Introduction 22 2.2 Behaviourism 23 2.2.1 Background and ethos of behaviourist instructional theory 23 2.2.2 Key characteristics of behaviourism 24 2.2.3 Behaviourist instruction: associated concepts 25 2.2.3.1 Gagné's categories of learning outcomes 25 2.2.3.2 Gagné's conditions of learning 26 2.2.4 Behaviourist learning theory: related perspectives 27 2.2.4.1 Objectivism 27 2.2.4.2 Instructionism 28 2.2.4.3 Reductionism 28 2.2.5 Comments on behaviourist instruction 29 2.3 Cognitivism 30 2.3.1 Background and ethos of cognitive learning theories 30 2.3.1.1 Ventures into artificial intelligence 30 2.3.1.2 Adaptive control of thought: Anderson's ACT model 31 2.3.2 Characteristics of the cognitive learning perspective 31 2.3.2.1 Key features of cognitive learning 31 2.3.2.2 Bloom's taxonomy 32 2.3.2.3 Gagné-Merrill enterprise schemas 33 2.3.3 Theories of cognitive instruction 34 2.3.3.1 Human problem solving: Newell and Simon theory 34 2.3.3.2 Learning as human information processing 35 2.3.3.3 Component display theory (CDT) 36 2.3.3.4 The second generation paradigm (ID 2 ) 37 2.3.3.5 Instructional transaction theory (ITT): 38 2.3.3.6 Automaticity 38 2.3.4 Cognitive learning theory: related perspectives 39 2.3.4.1 Complexity theory: integrating the affective with the cognitive 39 2.3.4.2 Transfer 41 v

2.3.4.3 Metacognition 41 2.3.4.4 Cognitive flexibility theory 42 2.3.4.5 Objectivism 42 2.3.5 Discussion on cognitivism and its development 43 2.4 Constructivism 44 2.4.1 Background and ethos of constructivist learning theories 45 2.4.2 Key characteristics of the constructivist learning perspective 46 2.4.2.1 General features and characteristics 46 2.4.2.2 Constructivist evaluation 49 2.4.3 Views and controversies about constructivist learning 51 2.4.4 Radical/extreme constructivism 54 2.4.5 Constructivist learning theory: related perspectives 55 2.4.5.1 Situated cognition and anchored instruction 55 2.4.5.2 Cognitive apprenticeship and cognitive flexibility theory 56 2.4.5.3 Constructivist learning environments and open-ended learning environments 56 2.4.5.4 Project-based learning and problem-based learning (PBL) 58 2.4.5.5 Interpretivism 60 2.4.5.6 Positivism 60 2.4.5.7 Chaos theory 60 2.4.6 Discussion of constructivist learning 61 2.5 Cross-paradigm characteristics 63 2.5.1 Collaborative learning and co-operative learning 63 2.5.1.1 The difference between collaborative and co-operative learning 63 2.5.1.2 Key elements of co-operative learning 64 2.5.2 Learner-centricity and learner-control 65 2.5.3 Creativity and motivation 66 2.5.3.1 Creative instruction 66 2.5.3.2 Motivation 68 2.6 The learning-focused paradigm of instructional theory 70 2.6.1 Towards a new paradigm of instructional theory 70 2.6.2 Relationship between instructional theory and instructional strategies 71 2.6.3 Learning-focused instructional theory 71 vi

2.6.4 Involvement of user-designers 72 2.6.5 How the new paradigm of instructional theory differs 73 2.7 A theoretical subdivision according to educational psychologists 74 2.7.1 The behaviourist/empiricist view 75 2.7.2 The cognitive/rationalist view 76 2.7.3 The situative/pragmatist-sociohistoric view 77 2.8 The three paradigms - isolationist or integrative? 78 2.9 Conclusion 81 Chapter Three Practice Learning and instructional systems design in practice 83 3.1 Introduction and discussion of terminology 83 3.1.1 Instruction and learning: theory to practice 84 3.1.2 Terminology 85 3.2 Behaviourist instructional systems 88 3.2.1 Introduction to behavioural instructional systems development 88 3.2.2 Characteristics of behaviourist instruction 89 3.2.2.1 Fleming and Levie's behaviourist principles 89 3.2.2.2 Hannafin and Peck's behaviourist principles 90 3.2.2.3 Gropper's behaviourist skills 91 3.2.3 Behavioural instructional systems development models 91 3.2.3.1 Gagné's events of instruction 91 3.2.3.2 The Dick and Carey model 92 3.2.3.3 Briggs and Wager model 94 3.2.3.4 The Braden model 94 3.2.4 Discussion of behaviourist instructional design 95 3.3 Cognitive instructional systems 97 3.3.1 Introduction to cognitive instruction and systems development 97 3.3.2 Characteristics of cognitive instructional design 97 3.3.2.1 Objectives and task analysis 98 3.3.2.2 Entry characteristics 98 3.3.2.3 Instructional strategies 98 vii

3.3.3 Cognitive ISD models 100 3.3.3.1 Component display theory (CDT) 100 3.3.3.2 Another perspective on components 102 3.3.3.3 Enterprise schemas 102 3.3.3.4 Second generation instructional design (ID 2 ) 103 3.3.3.5 Instructional transaction theory (ITT) 104 3.3.3.6 Alternative views to linear ID - 'design alternatives' 105 3.3.4 Cognitive-related aspects: practical applications in ISD 107 3.3.4.1 Implementation of metacognitive strategies 107 3.3.4.2 Instructionism and grounded design 108 3.3.4.3 Five star instructional design rating 109 3.4 Constructivist instructional systems 110 3.4.1 Introduction to constructivist learning and constructivist design 110 3.4.1.1 Differences between assumptions of traditional ID and constructivism 111 3.4.1.2 Towards constructivist instructional design 112 3.4.2 Characteristics and principles of design for constructivist learning 113 3.4.2.1 From objectivist strategies to constructivist methods 114 3.4.2.2 Constructivist values 115 3.4.2.3 Constructivist constructs 117 3.4.2.4 Constructivist instructional principles 119 3.4.2.5 Constructivist design principles 119 3.4.2.6 BIG and WIG constructivism 121 3.4.2.7 Constructivist assessment 121 3.4.3 Frameworks for constructivist learning and constructivist instructional design models 122 3.4.3.1 The recursive, reflective design and development model (R2D2) 122 3.4.3.2 The layers of negotiation model for designing constructivist learning materials 124 3.4.3.3 Constructivism and grounded design 127 3.4.3.4 The revised R2D2 model 128 3.4.3.5 Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments 131 3.4.4 Design of learning in perspectives related to constructivism 135 3.4.4.1 Situated cognition, anchored instruction, and cognitive apprenticeship 135 3.4.4.2 Constructivist learning environments (CLEs) 136 3.4.4.3 Open-ended learning environments (OELEs) 138 viii

3.4.4.4 Problem-based learning (PBL) 141 3.4.4.5 Implications of chaos theory for instructional design 142 3.5 Cross-paradigms issues 145 3.5.1 Collaborative learning and co-operative learning 145 3.5.2 Learner-centricity, customization, and learner-control 146 3.5.3 Creativity and motivation in instructional methods and resources 147 3.5.4 Five facets of a learning environment 149 3.5.5 Technology 149 3.6 The learning-focused paradigm of instructional-design theory 152 3.6.1 Towards a new paradigm 152 3.6.2 Reigeluth's classification according to instructional goal 153 3.6.3 Implications of the learning-focused paradigm 154 3.6.4 The debate on the learning-focused paradigm 156 3.7 Duchastel's prolegomena to instructional-design theory: a challenge for a full theory of instructional design 157 3.7.1 Many current theories - resulting confusion 157 3.7.2 Issues involved in building a full theory 158 3.7.3 How instruction can influence learning 160 3.7.4 Towards a theory of instructional design 162 3.8 Instructional design approaches - eclectic and pure... 163 3.8.1 Should aspects of different paradigms be combined in ISD? 163 3.8.2 Research methods to examine different paradigms 165 3.8.3 The practitioner in action 165 3.9 Conclusion 166 Chapter Four Synthesis Towards a metamodel 168 4.1 Introduction 168 4.2 Comparative analysis of the three major paradigms 169 4.2.1 Comparison and contrast: a summary 169 4.2.2 The different approaches - conflict, convergence or co-existence? 174 4.3 Selection criteria 175 ix

4.4 Selection process - culminating in the Hexa-C Metamodel 177 4.4.1 How the selection criteria were used to filter textual data 177 4.4.2 Results of the textual filtration process 178 4.4.3 Consolidated results of the textual filtration process 190 4.4.4 Discussion of results of textual filtration 192 4.4.4.1 Learning theories and characteristics of instructional design/practice 192 4.4.4.2 Further aspects of learning, including context and technology 193 4.4.4.3 Aspects of learning theory from the behavioural family 194 4.5 Elements of the Hexa-C Metamodel 195 4.5.1 The six elements: singly and compositely 195 4.5.2 Elements examined against the effectiveness criteria 196 4.6 The Hexa-C Metamodel compared to Duchastel's challenge for a single theory of ID and Reigeluth's new paradigm of ID 198 4.7 Conclusion 201 Chapter Five Evaluation What the HCMm toolset reveals about three learning events 202 5.1 Introduction 202 5.1.1 The three learning events 202 5.1.2 Research methods for evaluating the learning events 204 5.1.3 Structure of learning event evaluations 205 Section 5A - Case Study One: FRAMES 207 5A.1 Introduction to FRAMES 207 5A:1.1 Immediate domain and purpose 207 5A.1.2 Greater environment and learners 208 5A.1.3 Roles: the FRAMES designer, lecturer, and researcher 208 5A.1.4 Material and approach of the FRAMES practice environment 209 5A.1.5 Research design of the FRAMES case study 213 5A.2 Investigating FRAMES - using the Hexa-C Metamodel 214 5A.2.1 Components 215 5A.2.1.1 Initial discussion 215 5A.2.1.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 217 x

5A.2.1.3 Findings from survey of the learners 217 5A.2.1.4 Concluding discussion 219 5A.2.2 Cognitive learning theory 220 5A.2.2.1 Initial discussion 220 5A.2.2.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 222 5A.2.2.3 Findings from survey of the learners 223 5A.2.2.4 Concluding discussion 224 5A.2.3 Constructivism 225 5A.2.3.1 Initial discussion 226 5A.2.3.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 227 5A.2.3.3 Findings from survey of the learners 228 5A.2.3.4 Concluding discussion 229 5A.2.4 Collaborative learning 230 5A.2.4.1 Initial discussion 230 5A.2.4.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 231 5A.2.4.3 Findings from survey of the learners 231 5A.2.4.4 Concluding discussion 231 5A.2.5 Customization and learner-centricity 232 5A.2.5.1 Initial discussion 232 5A.2.5.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 233 5A.2.5.3 Findings from survey of the learners 233 5A.2.5.4 Concluding discussion 235 5A.2.6 Creativity 236 5A.2.6.1 Initial discussion 236 5A.2.6.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 237 5A.2.6.3 Findings from survey of the learners 238 5A.2.6.4 Concluding discussion 239 5A.3 General 240 5A.3.1 Facets of the FRAMES learning environment 240 5A.3.2 Technology in FRAMES 240 5A.4 Conclusion to the FRAMES evaluation 241 xi

Section 5B - Case Study Two: RBO880 243 5B.1 Introduction to RBO880 243 5B.1.1 Immediate domain and purpose 243 5B.1.2 Greater environment and learners 244 5B.1.3 Roles: the RBO880 developer, instructor, and the researcher 245 5B.1.4 Approach, the classroom, and tasks in RBO's electronic world 245 5B.1.5 Research design of the RBO case study 251 5B.2 Investigating RBO880 using the Hexa-C Metamodel 252 5B.2.1 Cognitive learning theory 252 5B.2.1.1 Initial discussion 252 5B.2.1.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 255 5B.2.1.3 Findings from survey of the learners 255 5B.2.1.4 Concluding discussion 258 5B.2.2 Constructivism 259 5B.2.2.1 Initial discussion 259 5B.2.2.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 264 5B.2.2.3 Findings from survey of the learners 264 5B.2.2.4 Concluding discussion 266 5B.2.3 Components 267 5B.2.3.1 Initial discussion 267 5B.2.3.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 267 5B.2.3.3 Findings from survey of the learners 268 5B.2.3.4 Concluding discussion 268 5B.2.4 Collaborative learning in RBO 268 5B.2.4.1 Initial discussion 268 5B.2.4.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 272 5B.2.4.3 Findings from survey of the learners 273 5B.2.4.4 Concluding discussion 275 5B.2.5 Customization 276 5B.2.5.1 Initial discussion 276 5B.2.5.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 277 5B.2.5.3 Findings from survey of the learners 277 5B.2.5.4 Concluding discussion 280 5B.2.6 Creativity 281 5B.2.6.1 Initial discussion 281 xii

5B2.6.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 283 5B2.6.3 Findings from survey of the learners 283 5B.2.6.4 Concluding discussion 286 5B.3 General 287 5B.3.1 Facets of the RBO learning environment 287 5B.3.2 Technology in RBO 288 5B.4 Conclusion 288 Section 5C - Case Study Three: Mkambati 2000 290 5C.1 Introduction to Mkambati 2000 290 5C.1.1 Immediate domain and purpose 290 5C.1.2 Operational environment and learners 291 5C.1.3 Roles: the project designer, facilitator, and the researcher 292 5C.1.4 Scope and events of Mkambati 2000 292 5C.1.5 Research design of the Mkambati case study 298 5C.2 Investigating Mkambati 2000 - using the Hexa-C Metamodel 299 5C.2.1 Creativity 299 5C.2.1.1 Initial discussion 299 5C.2.1.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 300 5C.2.1.3 Findings from survey of the learners 300 5C.2.1.4 Concluding discussion 303 5C.2.2 Collaborative learning 304 5C.2.2.1 Initial discussion 304 5C.2.2.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 305 5C.2.2.3 Findings from survey of the learners 305 5C.2.2.4 Concluding discussion 307 5C.2.3 Customization 308 5C.2.3.1 Initial discussion 308 5C.2.3.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 310 5C.2.3.3 Findings from survey of the learners 310 5C.2.3.4 Concluding discussion 312 xiii

5C.2.4 Components 312 5C.2.4.1 Initial discussion 313 5C.2.4.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 313 5C.2.4.3 Findings from survey of the learners 313 5C.2.4.4 Concluding discussion 313 5C.2.5 Cognitive learning theory 314 5C.2.5.1 Initial discussion 314 5C.2.5.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 315 5C.2.5.3 Findings from survey of the learners 317 5C.2.5.4 Concluding discussion 319 5C.2.6 Constructivism 321 5C.2.6.1 Initial discussion 321 5C.2.6.2 Viewpoint of the instructor-designer 325 5C.2.6.3 Findings from survey of the learners 326 5C.2.6.4 Concluding discussion 328 5C.3 General 329 5C.3.1 Facets of the Mkambati 2000 learning environment 329 5C.3.2 Technology in Mkambati 2000 329 5C.4 Conclusion to evaluation of the Mkambati Project 330 5.2 Conclusion to the chapter 333 Chapter Six Reflection What the case studies reveal about the HCMm toolset 334 6.1 Introduction 334 6.2 The three learning events 335 6.2.1 Contexts of the learning events 336 6.2.2 Use of technology in the learning events 337 6.2.3 Learner-responses related to elements of the metamodel 339 6.3 The Hexa-C elements, i.e. investigating the investigation tools 341 6.3.1 Constructivism 342 6.3.2 Cognitive learning 349 xiv

6.3.3 Creativity and motivation 354 6.3.4 Collaborative learning in the three learning events 359 6.3.5 Components 364 6.3.6 Customization of learning, learner-centricity, and learner-control 366 6.4 Inter-relationships and integration within the Hexa C Metamodel 369 6.5 Conclusion 373 Chapter Seven Conclusion 374 7.1 What has been achieved? 374 7.2 Research questions and answers 375 7.2.1 Response to Research Question One 375 7.2.2 Response to Research Question Two 375 7.2.3 Response to Research Question Three 377 7.3 Final review of the Hexa-C Metamodel 378 7.3.1 Strengths of the HCMm 378 7.3.1.1 As an evaluation aid 378 7.3.1.2 As a design aid 378 7.3.2 Weaknesses of the HCMm 379 7.3.2.1 As an evaluation aid 379 7.3.2.2 As a design aid 379 7.4 Relevance to South Africa 380 7.5 Directions for further research 382 7.6 Conclusion 383 Bibliography 384 Appendices 395 xv

LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Motivation for the selection criteria 8 1.2 Research goals and methods of this thesis 12 2.1 Tightly coupled approach to elements of instruction 25 2.2 Conditions of learning for four of the five types of learning 26 2.3 Conditions of learning for intellectual skills 26 2.4 Assumptions of objectivism and constructivism 62 2.5 How Information Age and Industrial Age instructional theory differ 70 3.1 Descriptive theories and prescriptive practices 86 4.1 The paradigms: Their underlying philosophy 170 4.2 Instructional and learning models: The ISD process 171 4.3 Actual instruction and learning: The learning process 172 4.4 Actual instruction and learning: evaluation of learning 173 4.5.1 Criterion 1: Consensus-builder 178 4.5.2 Criterion 2: Demonstrates functionality in authentic situations of instruction/training 179 4.5.3 Criterion 3: Learning-focused 180 4.5.4 Criterion 4: Pragmatic, not theoretically idealistic 181 4.5.5 Criterion 5: Incorporates some form of external assessment 182 4.5.6 Criterion 6: Integrates affective and cognitive aspects 182 4.5.7 Criterion 7: Has means to communicate domain complexity 183 4.5.8 Criterion 8: Platform-independent 183 4.5.9 Criterion 9: Helps learners apply knowledge and skills in practice 184 4.6.1 Summary and scores from Criterion 1: Consensus-builder 185 4.6.2 Summary and scores from Criterion 2: Demonstrates functionality in authentic instructional or training situations 185 4.6.3 Summary and scores from Criterion 3: Learning-focused 186 4.6.4 Summary and scores from Criterion 4: Pragmatic, not theoretically idealistic 187 xvi

4.6.5 Summary and scores from Criterion 5: Incorporates some form of external assessment 187 4.6.6 Summary and scores from Criterion 6: Integrates affective and cognitive aspects 188 4.6.7 Summary and scores from Criterion 7: Communicates domain complexity 189 4.6.8 Summary and scores from Criterion 8: Platform-independent 189 4.6.9 Summary and scores from applying Criterion 9: Helps learners apply knowledge and skills in practice 190 4.7.1 Consolidated occurrences of learning theories and characteristics 191 4.7.2 Consolidated references to other issues 191 4.7.3 Consolidated occurrences of concepts from the behavioural family 194 4.8 The six elements of the Hexa-C metamodel against the nine selection criteria 197 4.9 Comparison and contrast : Hexa-C Metamodel, Reigeluth s new paradigm, and Duchastel s prolegomena 199 5.1 Introduction to the three case studies 203 5.A.1 Profiles of learners surveyed 214 5.A.2 Relationship between FRAMES and CDT 215 5A.3 Learner-responses to structured questions relating to components 218 5A.4 Learner-responses to structured questions relating to cognitive learning 223 5A.5 Constructivist aspects of FRAMES 226 5A.6 Learner-responses to structured questions relating to constructivism 228 5A.7 Co-operative learning in FRAMES 230 5A.8 Customized learning in FRAMES 232 5A.9 Learner-responses to structured questions relating to customized learning 233 5A.10 Use of the three modes 234 5A.11 Learner-responses to structured questions relating to creativity 238 5A.12 Facets comprising the FRAMES practice environment 240 5B:1 Profiles of the learner population surveyed 251 5B.2 Internet familiarity prior to RBO 256 5B.3 Internet familiarity after RBO 256 5B.4 Aspects of overload/anxiety 257 5B.5 Constructivist aspects in RBO 264 5B.6 Being on the receiving end of constructivism 265 5B.7 How did you find the interaction with classmates? 273 5B.8 Did you use any other means of communication? 274 xvii

5B.9 Realization of personal learning preferences in RBO 277 5B.10 RBO and learning preferences 278 5B.11 Would learners like marks on an ongoing basis? 279 5B.12 Was RBO useful in your personal or professional life? 279 5B.13 Innovative aspects of RBO 284 5B.14 Aspects of this approach that I have used / would use in my own teaching 285 5B.15 Facets comprising the RBO virtual classroom 287 5C.1 Profiles of the learner population surveyed 298 5C.2 What motivated you in this experience? 301 5C.3 What did you find innovative in this approach? 301 5C.4 Emotions at the nature reserve during the project 302 5C.5 Motivation at write-up time 303 5C.6 Views on collaborative learning 306 5C.7 Views on learning preferences and personalization of the project to own style, interests, and expertise 310 5C.8 Software packages used in generating collaborative projects 311 5C.9 How I bridged learning gaps 318 5C.10 Elaborations on overload/anxiety 319 5C.11 Learner comments on aspects of constructivist learning 326 5C.12 Correspondence between constructivist features and learner-responses 327 5.C.13 Shortcomings identified and suggested remedies 327 5C.14 Facets comprising the Mkambati 2000 fieldwork project 329 6.1 Contexts, conditions and circumstances of the three learning events 336 6.2 Computer usage in the three learning events - categorized according to full and empty instructional technologies 337 6.3.1 Information revealed about constructivism in this study 343 6.3.2 Ways of implementing constructivism 347 6.3.3 Features of instruction in well-structured procedural domains 348 6.4.1 Information revealed about cognitive learning 350 6.4.2 Ways of implementing cognitive learning 353 6.5.1 Information revealed about creativity and motivation 355 6.5.2 Ways of implementing creativity 358 6.6.1 Information revealed about collaborative and co-operative work 360 6.6.2 Ways of implementing collaborative learning 363 xviii

6.6.3 Problems incurred in collaborative learning 363 6.7.1 Information revealed about components within instruction and learning 364 6.7.2 Ways of implementing learning of basic components 365 6.8.1 Information revealed about customization of learning 367 6.8.2 Ways of customizing learning 368 6.9.1 Positive relationships between elements of the Hexa-C Metamodel framework 371 6.9.2 Negative relationships between elements of the Hexa-C Metamodel framework 372 7.1 Review of the Research Questions 375 xix

LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 The development approach to research 13 1.2 Structure of the thesis 18 1.3 Chain of reasoning 19 2.1 Stimulus-response-reinforcement 24 2.2 A human information processing system 35 2.3 Interactive learning model 40 2.4 The objectivist-constructivist continuum 79 2.5 The objectivist-constructivist plane 80 3.1 The Dick and Carey instructional design model 93 3.2 Merrill s performance-content grid for CDT 101 3.3 Jonassen s web of constructivism 118 3.4 The R2D2 instructional design model 123 3.5 The Cennamo, Abell and Chung Layers of negotiation constructivist design model 126 3.6 The revised R2D2 model 129 3.7 Activity system 131 3.8 Model for designing constructivist learning environments 137 3.9 Development cycle of a science-based technology 151 4.1 The framework of the Hexa-C Metamodel 196 5.1 Evaluation perspectives : How each element is used to investigate each event from three perspectives 205 Text Box 5A: Subject matter and modus operandi of FRAMES and the FRAMES learner evaluations 209 5A.1 A FRAMES introductory screen 212 5A.2 A composite component for analysis of the Kind of relation 212 5A.3 Performance-content matrix for the components of FRAMES 217 5A.4 A FRAMES operational screen 221 5A.5 A FRAMES operational screen 222 5A.6 Operational screen showing example synthesis 227 5A.7 The graphic aid components 237 xx

Text Box 5B: The virtual world of an RBO learner 246 5B.1 Website of the RBO electronic classroom 248 5B.2 Desks of four of the learners of 2000 249 5B.3 Mini-desks of the two former learners 250 5B.4 The RBO timetable for 2000 250 5B.5 Outcomes and requirements of two RBO activities 260 5C.1 The Ecotourism tetrahedron 292 Text Box 5C: The Mkambati 2000 Project 293 5C.2 Map of Mkambati Nature Reserve 296 5C.3 Setting the scene 297 5C.4 Customizing the project to learners interests 309 5C.5 Integration and issues 316 5C.6 The mission of Mkambati 2000 in learners terms 331 6.1 Computer Usage in the three learning events 338 6.2.1 Categorization of FRAMES open-ended responses 339 6.2.2 Categorization of RBO open-ended responses 340 6.2.3 Categorization of MKAMBATI open-ended responses 340 7.1 How the HCMm contributes towards the critical outcomes of OBE 381 APPENDICES Appendix A1 395 Appendix A2 402 Appendix B 404 Appendix C 414 xxi

Terminology This is not a comprehensive glossary of terms. Rather, it is an overview of some generally-accepted, traditional meanings of certain terms in the domain of instruction and instructional design. These terms set the background for this study and form the context out of which the newer approaches such as constructivist learning environments, problem-based learning, etc. evolved.! What is an instructional theory? (Reigeluth, 1996c, 1999) Instructional-design theory: - is design-oriented - focusing on how to attain goals for learning or development, rather than description-oriented - focusing on the effects of given events. Instructional-design theory identifies: - Methods of instruction (ways to support and facilitate human learning and development); - Situations in which those methods should and should not be used. A major aspect of any situation is the desired instructional outcome (not the same as a learning goal) which sets out the levels of effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal required from the instruction. The methods of instruction are: - Componential, in that they comprise different components or features; - Probabilistic, not deterministic, meaning that they increase the chances, but do not ensure, attainment of the goals.! How does instructional-design theory differ from learning theory? (Reigeluth, 1996c, 1999) Learning theories are descriptive, in that they describe how learning occurs but do not identify or prescibe methods for promoting learning. By contrast, instructional-design theories are applied in practice; they are theories that identify methods for use in particular situations. In short, an instructional-design theory comprises methods and situations, and relates to events external to learners rather than describing what takes place within learners when learning occurs.! How does instructional-design theory differ from instructional systems development (ISD) processes? Instructional-design theory is concerned with the characteristics of the instruction and its methods, not with the processes an instructional designer or teacher would use to plan the instruction. According to Reigeluth (1999), terms which characterize this distinction are: - Instructional theory, instructional model, instructional strategies - to represent instructionaldesign theory; - Instructional development model, instructional systems development (ISD) process -to represent the actual process and procedures of designing instruction. These processes are, however, closely related to underlying theories. xxii

! What is instructional design? What are instructional design theory/models, and what does the instructional design process comprise? Instructional design (ID) is the link between descriptive learning theory and prescriptive educational practice (Reigeluth, 1997). ID thus comprises prescriptive instructional-design theories and models which set out methods for developing instruction, along with the conditions under which each should be used to produce a desired learning outcome. Instructional designers should be versed both in descriptive learning theories and prescriptive design theories, so that theory and practice can be integrated. Reigeluth (1983) in his classic, Instructional-design theories and models, Volume I describes instructional design: - As a professional activity, whereby decisions are taken as to what methods of instruction are best for bringing about desired changes in student knowledge and skills in a specific content area, and - As a discipline concerned with producing knowledge about optimal instructional methods, strategies, and combinations of methods (i.e. whole models). Reigeluth (1999) proposes that instructional design theory describes the characteristics of the instruction, i.e. what methods should be used. Analogous concepts are instructional theory, instructional model, and instructional strategies. The instructional design process is what a teacher or designer does to plan and prepare for the instruction, also called an instructional development model or instructional systems development (ISD). However, ID theories and ID processes are closely related. According to Merrill et al (1996c), instruction is a science and instructional design is a technology founded on this science. - Instructional science is concerned with discovering the natural principles involved in instructional strategies. Sciences are verified by discovery, so instruction, like other sciences, is verified by discovery. - Instructional design is a man-made technology using those principles to invent procedures and tools that will promote learning. Like other technologies, ID is extended by invention. Design research involves deriving procedures and processes that incorporate the theory learned from instructional science. So instructional design is a technology for the development of learning experiences and environments which promote the acquisition of specific knowledge and skill by students. It incorporates known and verified learning strategies into these instructional experiences and environments, so as to make the acquisition of knowledge and skill more efficient, effective, and appealing. - Instructional systems development (ISD) is a set of procedures for systematically designing and developing instructional materials. Winn (1990) defines instructional design as a set of decision-making procedures by means of which the most effective instructional strategies are developed or chosen. xxiii

Willis (1995) uses the following simple and paradigm-independent definitions: Instructional design refers to the process of designing instructional materials; and An instructional design model refers to a theory or model that can guide the process of instructional design.! What is entailed by instruction? Instruction involves directing students to appropriate learning activities, guiding them to appropriate knowledge, helping them rehearse, encode, and process information; monitoring student performance; providing feedback to their learning activities and practice (Merrill et al, 1996c). Dick (1991) defines instruction as an organized set of methods, materials, and assessments designed to promote competence in defined outcomes. Both of the above are definitions of what is known as direct instruction. Models of instruction Reigeluth (1989) identifies three basic forms for instructional theories and associated models of instruction: 1. Intact models, where a different kind of instruction is prescribed for each of a variety of conditions, for example, Merrill's CDT - section 3.3.3.1; 2. Variations on a model where there is one general model and variations of it are prescribed for different conditions; and 3. The 'smorgasbord' paradigm, which has no formal model of instruction, but prescribes various methods on a mix-and-match basis according to the conditions. xxiv