eLearning: Intrinsically Constructivist?

Wow, "intrinsically constructivist", that's a phrase I've never used before, and perhaps even a Google stumper. I've been reading in Online Learning this week about the "roles and competencies" of learners and instructors in traditional vs. eLearning settings. Hence the mind map above I've adapted from Dabbagh's adaptation of McLoughlin and Oliver's table on the "contrasting roles and discourse" in T vs. eLearning. And as these roles in chapter 2 unfolded, so did the pedagogical models that followed. Which led to an interesting question: is there something intrinsic in traditional face-to-face and eLearning environments that naturally leads the former to an objectivist approach and the latter to a more constructivist approach?



My own experience has led me to believe that the roles illustrated above are directly linked to, or result from (chicken or the egg?) a certain instructional model, but that these roles could just as easily be reversed from one environment to the other. I vividly remember my 300 student lecture in Organic Chemistry at UofM and this traditional face to face model certainly certainly led to the standard roles above. However, as an elementary teacher, I've witnessed how constructivist methods have gained more and more attention and are becoming common practice in these "traditional settings", particularly with math programs such as Investigations and with literacy models like Writers' Workshop and Literacy Circles.

This interchangeability could also be said of eLearning environments. Computer Assisted Instructional (CAI) software like Skillsoft and drill and practice programs like Jumpstart follow the traditional objectivist approach, and while they may be slightly more interactive and individualized than a traditional lecture, the learners experience is very directed and controlled. However, web-based environments such as Blackboard and Moodle lend themselves to a more open ended, learner centered approach, as has been my experience in the Online Masters program at WMU.

Which bring me back the reading. If the instructional model is not something intrinsic to the setting, as chapter 2 might lead me to believe, then where does it stem from? Ultimately, I believe that it stems from the beliefs, training, and experiences of the teachers and the designers of instruction, though it can certainly be influenced by environmental factors such as class size and available resources. So does one environment lead to one approach? No, I don't think it does.