Mohamed Ally S Chapter, Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning, Serves As

Stuart Adams

OMDE 610

March 22, 2010

Assignment 2 Article Critique

A Critical Analysis of Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learners

Mohamed Ally’s chapter, Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning (Ally, 2008), provides a thoughtful introduction to the key theories of learning and offers a basis for approaching the task of instructional design. This essay reviews and offers a critical analysis of this article.

Description of Content

Ally’s stated goal in this article was to discuss the foundational theories on learning and to present a model for effective online learning that is based on important aspects of those theories.

Ally’s initial discussion offers definitions of his terms, including a definition of online learning. Following a brief commentary on the benefits of online learning to learners and teachers he presents the underlying assumption of the paper: that effective instructional design (ID) must be based on an understanding of how students learn. Thus, one must first consider the three major “schools” of learning theory.

The bulk of the paper consists of a presentation of these major schools of thought on how people learn: Behaviorist, Cognitivist, and Constructivist. Detail is provided on key implications of each theory for the design and practice of online learning (OLL). In addition, Ally adds a description of the “Connectivist” perspective of online learning.

This leads to the central focus of Ally’s paper, a consolidation of instructional practices into a single model which he calls “Components of Effective Online Learning” (Ally, p. 37) He concludes the paper with a look towards the future of online learning.

On Structure, Organization, and Readability

The article is readable, clear, reasonably well written, and accessible to any undergraduate or postgraduate reader.

As described above, the author builds his case in three parts. In the first part, he introduces and sets up his arguments with definitions and statements of purpose. In part two, he presents the background descriptions of learning theories that are to be considered. Finally, in the third section, he develops his integrated model and ties up loose ends.

Part one is reasonably well laid out. The introduction gives context, and provides a definition of online learning that is sufficient for this paper. In this section, Ally also identifies his key assumptions about online learning.

The most interesting aspect of the second part of the paper is the unbalanced treatment of the three theories of learning, made evident by the gross number of words generated for each. In the case of the Cognitivist school, Ally gives considerable detail on many of the instructional practices that are ‘implied’ by the theory. For the Behaviorist school he provides very little information, few implications; the Constructivist theory gets a middling treatment. No justification or explanation is given for this imbalance.

Furthermore, in presenting the details of the implications of each school, the author does not give any indication as to how this information is going to be used in the remainder of the paper. He doesn’t explain why particular details were chosen over others nor does he prioritize any of the implications. Apparently, the descriptions are meant to set up his model elements, but the author doesn’t provide any map as to how that will be done.

The headings and graphics deserve some commentary here, as some detract from the clarity of the article. The headings were inconsistent and misleading in some cases. For example, did it indicate a diminished regard for the value of the Behaviorist school that it had a minor heading? The other schools, including the Connectivist school, all had major headings. The author apparently didn’t think about the cues he was giving.

Also, the author presents his integrated model, ostensibly the culmination of this work, under the heading “Conclusion.” That heading typically indicates that the key points of the work have been presented and that all that is left is summarizing and looking forward. Yet, that is where the author presents the substance of the work.

The graphics in this article are of concern, as well. For example, in the author’s diagram of his integrated model (Ally, p. 37)(page 37), elements were repeated or left out and arrows indicated relationships were ambiguous. These mistakes cause confusion, and suggest a lack of attention to detail in communicating his points.

The Quality of the Argument

As noted above, Ally sets his sight on creating an integrated model for designing online learning that takes the three major theories of learning into account. His central argument is “What is needed is not a new stand-alone theory for the digital age, but a model that integrates the different theories to guide design of online instructional learning materials.” (Ally, p. 18)

Ally’s development of his central argument suffers from two related weaknesses. The first is that the presentation of the implications for practice is desultory and incomplete. The author expounds on learning theory at length, presumably to arrive at best practices for each of the important implications. These best practices should become the components of the model. However, Ally doesn’t give any explanation of why specific implications, (and the best practices suggested by them) are included or excluded in the final model. There is no rigor in the way he brings the information together. He produces an amalgam of components that may or may not actually function as a working model.

The second problem, which flows from the first, is that the paper suffers from an ambiguity of purpose. It is not clear whether the author is trying to build a model or present a primer on learning theory. If it was Ally's goal to provide a chapter on learning theory, he should have done so, presenting a balanced treatment of each of the three theories. If he meant to present an integrated model based on the major learning theories, he should have produced a coherent argument for that model (as discussed above). However, it appears that he is serving two masters and risks failing both.

Relevance to the Field

An integrated model of instructional design for OLL would be valuable to both academics and practitioners. Academics and theorists would benefit from a more unified perspective that accounted for each of the major theories of learning. Practitioners would find such a model useful if it provided clear direction on which teaching methods were most useful in various situations. Creating a guide for best practices for online learning instructional design would be a valid and useful endeavor.

Numerous authors have tried to create such a model. Anderson developed a technology-oriented model that highlights interaction between the various actors of OLL. Kirschner, et.al. provide guidance for instructional design with their six-stage model for design of collaborative learning environments. These and others have tried to achieve ends similar to what Ally has attempted to achieve.

An Assessment of the Article’s Value

In this article, Ally tried to build a model of best online learning practices based on a theoretical understanding of how people learn. However, there is no consensus on a unified theory of how people learn. There are three, perhaps four competing theories that he recognized. As a result, he had to make a choice on how to proceed.

One approach would have been to pick his preferred theory and base his model on that theory. There would have been fewer divergent approaches and less to try to integrate. His challenge would have been simply to make his best case for his chosen theoretical approach. This course would have led to more definitive statements of the best approaches for an instructional designer to take. “As Cognitivists, we think that learners should be provided with concept maps as a step in pre-learning,” for example. Or, “as Constructionists, we think that learners should write a summary of their learning at the end of a chapter.”

A second approach would have been to attempt to unify the theories, and use that single unified theory as the basis for his model. The author might have been able to accomplish this by trying to identify the overlaps and consistencies between the three theories. By noting where the theories support and reinforce one another, he could have established that they are not competitive but complimentary.

In his discussions of the theoretical schools, Ally does, in fact, identify numerous ways that the theories overlap. For example, sequencing is identified as valuable in both Behaviorist and the Cognitivist theory, using virtually the same language. The overlaps between Cognitivist and Constructivist schools are much more abundant. For example, in the Constructivist understanding of how information gets processed into stored knowledge, Ally says, “learners process the information to transform it from short term to long-term memory” (Ally, p. 33). This description could serve as an explanation under Cognitivist theory, as well. In the discussion of both the Cognitive (Ally, p. 29) and Constructivist (Ally, p. 31) theories we are told that it is appropriate for the learners to be given “the opportunity to reflect” on their learning to internalize the material.

Clearly, there many overlapping methods and practices across the theories that offer some chance for unification. In his Looking Ahead section, Ally makes a weak attempt to integrate the theories by identifying relationships that they have to each other. It is reasonable to assume that the interrelationships between the theories are more complicated than his analysis offers. Ally forgoes the opportunity to further explore this idea; he discusses the pieces but doesn’t try to assemble the puzzle.

Instead, Ally takes a third approach, which is to pick the most important and valuable parts of each theory of learning and create a best practice model that is an amalgam of the components from each of the theories.

There are valuable aspects to the model. Many of the elements that he includes certainly should be included in a model of best practices. For example, Ally includes “Practice” from the Behaviorists, “Advanced Organizers” from the Cognitivists and “Journaling” from the Constructivists. There is research that supports each of the elements as being effective in helping students learn. Also, the model appropriately puts interaction in the prominent role. Interaction is so important that it finds its way into many academic papers on OLL (Anderson, 2004; Kirschner, Strijbos, & Kreijns, 2004; Morrison, 2007). Mayes (Mayes, 2006) goes so far as to ask the question "Is education to be defined as interaction?”

Because of the lack of rigor in the way Ally brings the information together, his model amounts to a list of the valuable components of good ID, a “grab bag” of approaches. This does not give the ID practitioner a model that is prescriptive, that gives any definitive direction in specific situations. There is no sense of emphasis or priority among the components of the model. The practitioner gains no clear direction on which components should be used in which order. There is no information given by the model that evaluates the effectiveness of the components. For example, the model could indicate which of the Learner Preparation components should be done first and which should follow, or what might be an effective fallback if an approach doesn’t work.

It also should be noted that in the model, Ally presents a distinction between learning activities and learner interaction. This distinction doesn’t exist; learner activities do not happen as separate from learner interactions. The activities are the means for generating interaction, not a separate process. For example, the activities “Reading Listening and Viewing” (Ally, p. 37) are methods for effecting learner-content interaction. This false distinction may also be a result of the grab bag aspect of Ally’s model, since it seems that he must find a place for each of the implications-driven practices as a component somewhere in the model.

Some comment on Ally’s treatment of the Connectivist theory is in order. It is hard to accept Connectivism as a theory of learning since it has so many weaknesses. Three critiques are in order regarding Connectivism. First, the theory asserts that it is “for the digital age” (Ally, p. 34), but a theory of knowledge is limited if it is only applicable to a specific age and cultural milieu. Second, the theory asserts that information that is valid today may not be valid tomorrow. Perhaps new information will be added to or layered on top of the old. But, if for no other reason than its historical context (“scientists used to think…”), information doesn’t become invalid. Finally, the assertion that there are “constant changes to information” (Ally, p. 35)is mostly hyperbole. Most of what is going to be taught at the K-12 and undergraduate level is not in flux and that which does change is additive to what doesn’t change.

Ultimately, Ally leaves us with a model that characterizes ID as more art than science, with limited guidance and direction for the practitioner, and that is not really a very good model at all.

References

Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and prectice of online learning. Athabasca, ABA: Athabasca University. Available online at :http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebooks/01_Anderson_2008_Ally-Online_Learning.pd

Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University. Available online at :http://www.cde.athabascaau.ca/online_books