Behaviourist-Constructivist Pedagogical Design Possibilities Within the Community of Inquiry Framework

Sheriya Sareen; Sayantan Mandal

doi:10.21432/cjlt28673

Authors

Sheriya Sareen Indian Institute of Technology Jammu
Sayantan Mandal Indian Institute of Technology Jammu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28673

Keywords:

behaviourism, blended learning, community of inquiry framework, constructivism, higher education, socio-constructivism

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.

Author Biographies

Sheriya Sareen, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu

Sheriya Sareen is a research scholar in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, India. She is also a Policy Consultant at COL-CEMCA. Previously a visiting scholar at NUS Singapore and IIT Delhi, Sheriya is currently contributing to three national-level projects at the intersection of higher education policy and technology. Sheriya holds dual master's degrees in Physics and Education and has received numerous accolades, including a gold medal and position, during her academic journey.

Sayantan Mandal, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu

Sayantan Mandal is a senior Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, India. He has prior work experience at NIEPA and the Delhi University in India. With a doctorate from the University of Deusto and a Master’s degree from Aarhus University, Sayantan is currently coordinating three national-level studies at the intersection of higher education policy and technology, while also contributing to various policy dialogues.

References

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