REPRESENTATION OF LEARNING THEORIES IN THE DESIGN OF ELECTRONIC COURSES IN THE CONTEXT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Biljana D. Đorić

DOI: 10.46793/STEC20.147DJ

UDK: 378:37.018.43

Abstract: E-learning is based on numerous psychological and pedagogical theories of learning, which is why their implementation in the context of instructional design can greatly affect the organization and content of e-courses. Diversity in the contents of certain teaching areas requires different approaches in shaping the learning environment. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study is to examine the representation of learning theories in e-course design in the context of higher education. For the needs of the research, an instrument was created which was piloted on a sample of 20 teachers and associates of the Faculty of Technical Sciences in Čačak, University of Kragujevac. The questionnaire covers the following learning theories: behavioral theories, individual and social constructivism, cognitivism and enactivism. The results of this research indicate that teachers and associates give statistically different estimates of the representation of individual learning theories in their e-courses, although these differences do not exist between all compared categories. The principles of individual constructivism are most represented, and social constructivism and enactivism are the least represented. Based on the obtained results, the paper presents pedagogical and research implications for a more detailed examination and understanding of the subject of research.

Keywords: learning theories, e-learning, constructivism, cognitivism.

References:

Awwad, A. A. A. (2013). Piagetʼs Theory of Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(9), 106–129.

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(11), 417–423.

Bateman, D. (2006). Doing futures: futures education and enactivism. In ATEA 2006: Making teaching public: reforms in teacher education: Proceedings of the 2006 ATEA Conference, The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle (2–10). Australian Teacher Education Association.

Begg, A. (2013). Interpreting enactivism for learning and teaching. Education sciences & society, 4(1), 81–96.

Bujang, M. A., Omar, E. D. & Baharum, N. A. (2018). A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: a simple guide for researchers. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences: MJMS, 25(6), 85.

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotskyʼs educational theory in cultural context, 1, 39–64.

Chen, S. J. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of interactive online learning, 6(1), 72–86.

Collis, B. & Margaryan, A. (2005). Design criteria for work‐based learning: Merrillʼs First Principles of Instruction expanded. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 725–738.

Collis, B., Margaryan, A. & Amory, M. (2005). Multiple perspectives on blended learning design. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 12–21.

Edgar, D. W. (2012). Learning theories and historical events affecting instructional design in education: Recitation literacy toward extraction literacy practices. Sage Open, 2(4), 1–9.

Ernest, P. (2010). Reflections on theories of learning. In B. Sriraman i L. English (eds.): Theories of mathematics education (39–47). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-4_4.

Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.

Fleming, J. S. (2004). Psychological Perspectives on Human Development. Retrieved June 1, 2020 from the World Wide Webhttp://swppr.org/Textbook/Contents.html.

Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C. & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 115–136.

Isman, A. (2011). Instructional Design in Education: New Model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 10(1), 136–142.

Joubish, M. F. & Khurram, M. A. (2011). Cognitive Development in Jean Piaget’s Work and its Implications for Teachers. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(8), 1260–1265.

Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.

Кузмановић, Б. (2016). Имплементација теорија учења у дизајну електронских курсева. (Објављен мастер рад). Чачак: Универзитет у Крагујевцу: Факултет техничких наука у Чачку.

Li, Q. & Winchester, I. (2014). Enactivism and Freedom Education. Trends in interdisciplinary studies, AVANT – Enactivism: Arguments & Applications, 2, 113–136.

Li, Q., Clark, B. & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in enactivism: A paradigm shift?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 403–419.

Lutz, S. & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67–90.

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M. & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.

Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational psychology review, 14(1), 87–99.

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theory.

Retrieved June 1, 2020 from the World Wide Web https://etad.usask.ca/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm.

Ozcelik, E. & Yildirim, S. (2005). Factors influencing the use of cognitive tools in web-based learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 295–308.

Pešikan, A. (2010). Savremeni pogled na prirodu školskog učenja i nastave: socio konstruktivističko gledište i njegove praktične implikacije. Psihološka istraživanja, XIII(2), 157–184.

Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U. & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence‐oriented design of learning – Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 747–762.

Soomro, K. A., Zai, S. Y. & Jafri, I. H. (2015). Competence and usage of Web 2.0 technologies by higher education faculty. Educational media international, 52(4), 284–295.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123−138.

Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53–55.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50–60.

Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary educational technology, 1(1), 1–16.