From Socratic behaviourism to
digital constructivism
Antonio Manuel Diogo dos Reis,
The Graal Institute,
Portugal
e-mail: antoniodreis@gmail.com
Olga
Yakovleva,
Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia,
Eugenia
Smyrnova-Trybulska,
University of Silesia in katowice, Poland,
e-mail: esmyrnova@us.edu.pl
Nataliia Morze,
Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine
e-mail: nmorze@ukr.net
Abstract
The paper presents a synopsis of the evolution of methods and
tecniques up to digital age and caracterises the main aspects of behaviourist
and constructivist models, in order to study the development of new advanced
pedagogical tools and methods in education science, in a constructivist
environment. For the purpose of the study, the synthetic analysis of technological evolution during
the last decades and its impact in education science was made, with a special
focus on virtual teaching and learning. The practical outcome of the study was a series
of online seminars and workshops, prepared by the international team of the
IRNet project. The keynotes and workshops were held during DLCC conference 2017
(Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Distance Learning, Subtitle: Effective
Development of Teachers’ Skills in the Area of ICT and E-learning), in the Universuty
of Silesia in Katowice, Poland.
Video presentation available at: https://youtu.be/rp-suGGBKWU
Keywords:
behaviourism,
constructivism, e-learning, blended learning, digital environment, IRNet
Introduction
The technological evolution during the
last seven decades have transferred a “room computer” (Mark I, 1943) weighting
several tons into a small tiny laptop, weighting less than one kilo and a
thousand times more powerful than his “grand grandfather”. This technological
revolution was followed by enormous changes in learning methodology: didactic
tools were adjusted and the ways of their implementation altered. Nowadays we
witness information, communication, interactive and mobile society, where civilizations
are connected in real-time mode across the planet. This results in an enormous
sociologic changes in all scientific areas, but mainly in education.
The social profiles of our students have
also changed. The average age has increased, because: “the 4 years of
university basic education are just an introduction to 40 years of lifelong learning”
Lima J. (2004). There is no doubt that students today are building their own
knowledge. Students demand more interactivity, more multimedia content.
Together with that, they are more Web dependent, surface learners, who are
demanding more mobility and didactic communication in presence and distance
learning. This is because, they are digital constructivist
learners, multi intelligent, (Gardner
All mentioned above results
in a new way of teaching and learning, with new technologies and new
methodologies. Although a large amount of investment has been made in
the last decades in new technologies and methodologies, still teacher skills
are short in fulfilling all education requirements.
The questions that arise today are:
- Are we, teachers,
prepared to teach in the 21 century?
- Do we have the right
skills?
- What are the best
technologic tools and the best methodologies?
- Is e-learning a solution?
Do we need learning to be used in both presence and virtual environments?
Enormous amount of training, research and
reflexions is required to answer these questions.
1. Synthetic analysis of technological evolution during the last decades and
its impact on education science
1.1. Distance learning stages
We can find references to distance learning since the
XVIII century (Verduin & Clark, 1991), although in practice it was not used
regularly until the middle of the XX century in the USA and some European
countries. The Second World War forced an important increase in distance learning,
because many young people incorporated in the war needed to go to the front and
simultaneously many of them had to be replaced in their civil jobs with no
trainers or tutors available. Moreover, when the war was finished all the young
people had to be integrated back in the professional civil activities.
In this scenario in the mid-forties Skinner started to
talk about the “teaching machine”, but in that period he did not realised what
type of “Pandora box” he was opening. For the development of educational programs, it was
necessary to analyze tasks and objectives. In 1956, Bloom published the
conclusions of his research on “the taxonomy of educational objectives”.
On the one hand, distance learning has evolved (Moore,
Kearsley, 1996) following the development of computers, multimedia and
Internet. On the other hand, technologies developed gradually in variety,
complexity and potential, offering new models of distance teaching and learning
(Chute et al., 1999).
We can name several stages of distance learning.
First distance learning stage
(-» 1970): courses content was delivered by “regular means”. At the beginning,
the content and all learning materials were delivered by regular mail. Later training
courses were presented on the radio (1930) and television (1954). The pedagogic
approach for this stage and the two subsequent stages was totally behaviorist.
Second stage (1970-1980): open
universities. Although Skinner and Bloom developed
their ideas in the fifties, it was only in the seventies that the theoretical
bases for distance learning started to flourish, particularly as the result of the “World
Conference for Distance Learning”, coordinated by Wedemeyer in 1972. Michael
Moore (1973) suggested that some resources had to be developed to define the
research areas, identify different types of distance learning and built up
theoretical methods. In 1969 the “UK Open University” was founded and Bloom was
one of the consulting advisers of this project. “UK Open University” is known
as one of the most relevant projects in this area and a model for many other
experiences that took place all over the world during the seventies and
eighties (Daniel, 1996).
Third stage (1980 - 1990): video
cassettes and TV. The rise of video players, satellite and cable
communications enhanced the importance of TV and video communication in
distance learning. The audio and image quality of the contents was very fair
and video players were offering the possibility of students to attend lessons
“anytime, anywhere” and as many times as needed. Since 1985 different sets of
courses were offered with a remarkable success.
Forth stage (1990-2000): computers,
multimedia, interactivity, e-learning. Technological evolution of
digital equipment and software showed new possibilities of interactivity and
improved the quality of distance learning. CD-ROMs and Internet (1990) were two
important innovative tools, offering flexible learning, allowing anyone to use
virtual learning environments regardless of places or time zones. In addition, new communication systems based
on Internet, started to offer the potential of interaction among students,
teachers and specialists across the world. This period marks the beginning of
multimedia contents production, communication and distribution through LMSs.
One of the most important aspects was the evidence of a need for new
methodologies together with new technologies.
Some proposals in this area were presented in the
early nineties:
a) Moore
b) The “student autonomy”, was highlighted as
important and called “transactional distance theory”, from Dewey “transaction”
concept, which was later developed by Boyd and Apps.
There was a debate about the definition of distance
learning. The focus was the physical separation of students and a teacher
during the learning process (William, Paprock, Covington, 1999). One
of the most popular distance learning definitions produced by Moore and
Kearsley (1996) states: in distance learning courses the teaching and learning
process is running in separated environments and special techniques are necessary
besides the curriculum formulation, teaching, communication, organization and
administration. However, it is also important to point out that the learning
process is based on new methodologies that become effective. The use of an
expanded interactivity, multimedia, graphic animation, audio, and video (stream
video has been available since 1997), hypertext, communication over email, chat
within “focus groups” – all these opportunities were the dream of many authors
and course coordinators in that period, though very difficult to implement.
Students started to be seen as active partners who use different technologies.
In fact the use of
this format was very limited until the mid of the first decade of the 21st
century, mainly due to short bandwidth available and its high cost. Moreover, even
available technologies were often used without being supported by adequate new methodologies,
and that could have turned distance learning activities into a “technological
noise”. There is a final question: What is e-learning today?
In 2000 we talked
about distance learning, not e-learning.
However, when we talk about online learning today, are we exclusively
talking about distance learning? Not necessarily! Today we can talk about
distance learning supported by presence activities or presence learning
supported in distance / online activities. In fact, we are in the process of constant
evolution. The increasing use of online tools in presence teaching makes online
tutoring a daily support tool with excellent results to improve the learning
quality. What are the changes that justify that? We could see that the nineties
were a critical period for a qualitative change in distance learning. Important
technological evolutions, software development and communication facilities
occurred during this period. For example, very fast computers appeared, allowing
video and audio editing. Moreover, hard discs, with very high capacity and
rotations above 7.200 rpm were able to capture video. “Stream video” has developed
since 1997 and diffused over the Internet (1990) / WWW (1991). Video projectors
became available together with the software to produce audio and video contents
and presentations. However, only after Internet became available with a sufficient
bandwidth and an affordable price (in the first decade of XXI) it was possible
to start using it for education purposes. Video conference tools were available
in acceptable quality and prices for education “one-to-one” or “many to many”
in the format of virtual classrooms, after the year 2000. In addition, only
after 2004 open source LMS platforms that were possible to use at different
education levels become available.
Education nowadays covers not only the life period from
kindergarten to postgraduate degrees, but it is understood as lifelong learning.
The reasons for this are the political pressure over school results, the use of
ICTs, the challenges brought by the Bologna methodology, and the common use of
computers, social networks and 3D environments. The learning theories of the
digital era emphasize the importance of asynchronous interactivity, related to Web
2.0 (Downs, 2004; O´Reilly, 2005) as well as synchronous interactivity and
collaborative work, inducing connectivism (Siemens, 2005). Mobility, collaborative
and informal learning are now understood as the evolution of learning processes
based on technologies. Daniel Goleman (1999), in his “emotional intelligence theory”
suggests the use of pedagogic games and other emotional intelligence activities
to increase the learning quality. This emotional oriented approach opens an
opportunity to the use of 3D environments as eligible and valid tools for the
education proposes. The experience of using Second Life and Active Worlds has
shown a good potential, but revealed some didactic limitations in MUVE
platforms when used in some education environments.
According to the needs of a student’s profile,
teachers should update their technological and methodological skills. This requires
permanent training in the following areas:
- new collaborative learning methodologies;
- online tutoring, use of virtual classrooms, video
conference tools and virtual group work;
- tools to produce contents in multimedia format,
pedagogic games, use of interactive synchronous and asynchronous tools;
- use of online platforms for managing contents
(LMSs) and other supporting interactive animations like 3D and MUVES;
- formative evaluation.
Rosenberg (2001) emphasized that teaching today comprises
different forms and formats: presence
teaching, online teaching, virtual teaching, blended teaching and other.
According to García et al - (2007),
Bernárdez - (2007), Bernal - (2007), there is no sense in trying to develop
opposite terminology and make the “black and white game”. It is much more
important to integrate the differences and complementary but mainly to improve
teacher skills. An interesting study ordered by the US Government about online
education states important rules and methodologies (Means, B. Toyama,
Y. Murphy, R. Bakia, M. Jones, K. May
2009). According to Means B. (2009), “online learning” is “learning with total or
partial use of Internet”. This definition excludes printable documents and the
use of TV or radio. This definition is not consensual. Some other authors use a broader
definition accepting a large use of different electronic equipment - more or
less what is usually called today as “online learning” or “e-learning”. E-learning definition has changed over the years and
included different contents, but always expressed a relation between learning
and the use of computers.
The first most frequent used concept were CBI (Computer-Based Instruction), CBT (Computer-Based Training) or just CBL (Computer-Based Learning). During the
nineties e-learning was referred to as distance learning. In 2001 Rosenberg introduced
a reflection about the separation between distance learning and e-learning:
“e-learning is one format of distance learning, but distance learning might not
necessarily mean e-learning” … Rosenberg, wanted to “separate waters”: on one
side, distance learning supported by documents sent by post or other
traditional means - not being e-learning; and on the other side, teaching and
learning supported by electronic equipment and tools. Today there is the
consensus that e-learning incorporates online tools and techniques, with
contents distributed in multi modal format (printable, videos, audios documents
etc.), with the use of interactivity in asynchronous or synchronous mods (virtual
classrooms or in presence or distance teaching). In this regard, we can say
that the revolution introduced by e-learning, has led to the results that even
in presence classrooms, learning will never be as it was in the nineties. In
the beginning of the XXI century e-learning evolved into a blended format:
comprising presence and distance learning broadly called b-learning.
Picture N. 1 “Evolution part I - from Socrates behaviourism
to digital constructivism”.
Picture N. 2 “Evolution part I – e-learning evolution”.
We can say that
this was the end of distance learning in its pure format. For long duration
courses, from a pedagogical point of view, it is convenient that learning is
completed in a blended format: presence and distance learning. Nevertheless, in
a short period, with technological improvement, particularly over increased
bandwidth availability, communication and video conference software and better
teaching skills, the possibility of using virtual classrooms and synchronous
activities can arise as a full alternative to presence learning. We have today
contents distributed asynchronously and tutoring in presence or virtual format.
This approach corresponds to Web 2.0 recommendations.
During the last decade, the concept of e-learning was changing
and altering. E-learning stages can be typified in three different phases,
which can be distinguished by the level of interactivity, the existence of
multimedia contents, and the existence of synchronous and asynchronous online
support. The evolution of technology, pedagogic methodology and teachers skills
allow us today to use all the above mentioned approaches.
First e-learning stage
– e-learning 1.0 (2000). Courses were structured in a self-learning format and
only lectured virtually (distance learning). Contents were distributed in pdf
or word prints and no interactivity existed. At the end of the course, students
normally had final presence examinations. Very quickly students and teachers
realized the limitations of this approach and a mixed solution of presence and
distance learning was recommended - usually called “blended learning”, or “b-learning”.
Second e-learning
stage - e-learning 2.0 (2004). In 2004 Stephan
Downs and O´Reilly started presenting their ideas about Web 2.0. Stephan and
O´Reilly, called for a more dynamic WEB and stressed the importance of
interactivity with important repercussions in education environment. A major
important topic was the interactivity and multimedia content in asynchronous
format: teacher–student, student–contents and student–student. Tools available
for synchronous activities like virtual classrooms or video conference were few
and very expensive and they required quite a high bandwidth. The content was
mainly distributed with the use of the following tools: forums, chats, wikis, and
blogs. All of them were in asynchronous format, and could be integrated into
either LMS or not (Stephen Downs 2005, 2007, 2009 y Tim O´Reilly 2005).
Third e-learning stage
- e-learning 3.0 (2006 -»). The technologic evolution, mainly related to
communication tools, was a relevant factor for the third stage. Video
conference and virtual classroom software started to be offered at much lower prices
and required much less bandwidth. ISP suppliers offer sizeable bandwidth at
fair prices. Simultaneously, LMS platforms are being offered at “open source”,
like Moodle, Joomla among others. From a technological point of view distance
learning requirements are now fulfilled in good conditions. This means that,
there are available asynchronous distribution and a need of communications
tools for synchronous online tutoring.
Now, we are facing a new quality challenge on distance
learning. It doesn’t matter if it is called CBL, ICT, e-learning, online
learning or any other thing, technical tools are available to work with quality
at any education level. Everyday better and better tools are being offered to
facilitate teachers’ job and the students’ learning. However, learning and
teaching tools require more skills from teachers and students and new
methodologies. In 2006 Stephan Downes, presented a new view over a web 3.0. He
supposed that web should be more effective over browsing and searching in terms
of semantic and obtained results, although, the relation between his “future
view” and education science was short. In 2006 we could again say that we were
facing a new phase of e-learning - e-learning 3.0, which emerged from
“connectivism” based in the George Siemens approach, which includes mobility,
multimedia contents and online synchronous
interactivity.
The main aspects used in this environment are:
·
The use of new technologies supported by new
methodologies;
·
The use of LMS to distribute asynchronously contents
and manage courses, in distance and presence learning;
·
Online synchronous tutoring support, using audio,
video, white boards and other tools in virtual classrooms;
·
Continuous formative evaluation supported by online
activities;
·
The blended learning concept has changed from a mix of
presence and distance learning into asynchronous and synchronous activities, using
virtual classrooms in presence and virtual format.
The main synchronous virtual tools were virtual
classrooms, e-round table, Webcast, video diffusion, e-workshop, conference
call. Hart (2008) identified three stages of e-learning and associates them
with Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. In fact, he could establish a relation
between Web phases and e-learning phases.
Basogain X. (2009) reports that the formulation of
e-learning 3.0 by Reis (Reis et al, 2009), is different from Downs, because he
introduces a pedagogic environment and new e-learning stages, includes several
didactic tools also used in presence and distance learning.
Шn this way, the concept of b-learning developed on the basis of face to
face and virtual communication, supported by asynchronous learning platforms
(Moodle, Blackboard and others) and synchronous virtual or presence formats. All, strongly supported by
multimedia content, interactivity in online tutoring, synchronous virtual
classroom activities and formative assessment.
A relevant aspect
that should be pointed out is that the change from phase one into the next did
not eliminate the didactics of the previous, it only introduced new didactic
tools, new methodologies and build a richer learning environment. The focus is
more than just technologies; it is an introduction of new methodologies and new
skills to frame the educational process, to respond to a set of new needs of
our students in online learning. The solution includes a set of virtual
classrooms, techniques and processes that characterize what we call “new
ICT”.
2. Synthesis and comparison of learning theories in synchronous and
asynchronous contexts
The theories of learning are projected in the context of the affirmation
of psychology as a science in the late nineteenth century, the most relevant
being behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. Shuman (1996), Wilhelmsen
(1999).
Behaviourism has its roots in the ideas of John
B. Watson in 1913 (DelMar 1998). Watson based his studies on Pavlov's work of
the nineteenth century and conditioned reflex. The work of Watson was later
taken up by Skinner in the 1930s and is based on the study of the individual's
reactions to environmental stimuli where mental processes are ignored.
According to Schuman (1996), "Behaviourism is based on observable behavioural
changes. By introducing changes in a given behavioural model, it is repeated
until it becomes automatic "... Funderstanding (1998) has a similar
reading of behaviourism in stating that "it is an animal and human
learning theory that focuses on observable behaviours and ignores mental
activities. Behaviourist theorists define learning as the acquisition of a new behaviour
"... In the behaviourist model cognitive processes are not referred to by
Briner (1999).
Cognitivists believed that learning took place when a learner processed
information and what went on inside it. This is therefore a substantially
different approach to behaviourists, who considered a reactive and mechanical
response to the stimulus. Jean Piaget began to develop this concept in the
twenties, and developed most of the cognitivist theories by observing the behaviour
of children.
Although the approaches are distinct in terms of the process between behaviourism
and cognitivism, both consider knowledge as an absolute and learning is the
process that creates the symbolic representation of outer reality (Widlhelmsen,1999).
According to Burner cited in Taylor (2004), there are three components of the
learning object: 1) acquisition of new information, usually based on something
already known; 2) Transformation of information; and 3) Evolution, where the
analysis and reflection process is performed on the information acquired and
processed.
Constructivism according to Schuman (1996) is based on the premise that
we all construct our own knowledge and personal perspective of the world
through our personal experience and the mental structure that we have, which is
in permanent evolution.
According to Lima (2003), there are many definitions of constructivism,
but all encompass the following aspects:
·
In the constructivist perspective knowledge is
actively constructed by a student and not transmitted;
·
Learning is both an active and reflective process;
·
A student's interpretation of the new experience is
influenced by his previous knowledge;
·
Social interactions introduce multiple perspectives in learning;
·
Learning requires the understanding of the whole as
well as the parts and they must be understood in the context of the whole.
The essential aspect of constructivism is the construction of knowledge
itself, which is relative, evolutionary, and fallible (Wilhelmsen 1999). The
evolution of learning theories introduces substantially different approaches to
the role of a learner, teacher and evaluation in the learning process. The
analysis of the constructivist models allows characterizing in more detail the
different facets of the constructivist theory.
Teaching theory
integrates a body of theoretical approaches that came throughout the XX century,
with a view to creating guidelines for the work of teachers. Snelbecker (1999)
says that teaching theories are only general guidelines for the teaching work,
complemented by Reigeluth (1999), who considers it advantageous to integrate
several theories and methods adapted to each of the cases in which one is
working. The evolution of theoretical bases is closely linked with the
evolution of different currents of teaching theory, namely behaviourism to constructivism.
Boyle (1997) introduced two main points - "Instruction" and
"Constructivism". Smith and Reagan (1999) classify as
"traditional" the situations when knowledge is acquired and
"constructivist" - where knowledge is constructed. Teaching theories
are commonly referred to as ID theories or instructional design. Reigeluth and
Frick (1999) understand that due to the constant evolution and updating of
theoretical models, the main objective will be the permanent analysis of new
theories with integration and synthesis with the body of existing theories. As
we have already mentioned teaching theory, it is closely related to learning
theory, curriculum and the ID process.
Constructivist knowledge environment has three
steps and three levels:
1. Defining rules and moulding;
2. In the second step, it is learn
and learn, and learn how to make, it is teaching and coaching
3. In the third stage, learner should build his own knowledge. it is the
scaffolding stage
It is
create new information and build student´s own knowledge.
According
to Lima (2003), the evolution from behaviourism environment to constructivism,
introduces enormous changing in all aspects of teaching and learning
environment. In pedagogic and philosophic perspective, the profile of teaching
institution, a new profile to the contents, teacher´s and student´s profile and
assessment.
Let us
start for the Pedagogic Philosophic Perspective. In BEHAVIOURISM and COGNITIVISM environment, knowledge exists in the
outsider world.
The learning is a cognitive process not depending of
learner profile. Learning is coordinated by the teacher. The learning is a sum
of isolated facts. Student´s learning styles are homogeneous
In CONSTRUCTIVISM environment, the perspective
is different. Knowledge is built up by the learner and inside himself. Learning
is an intellectual and social process influenced by the interaction of
learner´s culture and knowledge. Learning process is centred and controlled by
the learner. Learning is supported in real facts. Learning is a cooperative
process and group work. Learning styles are heterogeneous
In
Behaviourist and cognitivist environment, the
Teaching Institution was static stone of the teaching process. It was a Knowledge organization. Transmitting
knowledge to students. Prepare students for a life career. Teaching based in
the quality and quantity of information.
But in a
Constructivist perspective, a teaching institution is: A Learning resources centre
Preparing learners for knowledge, information
society and long life learning. Preparing
students to professional update and change of profession along his life. Teaching with a focus in quality and quantity
of learning
Contents in behaviourist
perspective, is a teacher centred activity and standardized process, it is
homogeneous, with a limited training and information process.
Contents
in a constructivist perspective it is centred in the learner and real cases, it
is personalized as well contents diversity and learning process. its dynamic and with access to large quantity of global
information
Concerning
teachers profile in a behaviourist environment. Teacher is the master and the Centre of knowledge. Teacher
is a Knowledge diffuser.
In a
constructivist perspective, teacher is
a guider and a learning facilitator, integrates real experiences in the
learning process. Teaches how to learn, teaches how to search and to select
results. Structures and summarise information.
Motivates students. Promote group work. Promote critical perspective. Stimulate
self-study capacity and quality of analyses
About Students in behaviourist and
cognitivist environment.
They are
passive knowledge receivers. They learn other people acknowledge. Assimilate
information found by other. Accept with
conformism, knowledge diffused by other.
But in a constructivist perspective, student
is an active knowledge builder.
Learns
how to learn and develops his own knowledge. learns how to work in group for a
personal result or for a cooperative work. Express critical thinking in
initiative and diversity of opinion, they have totally different perspectives.
Finally,
about assessment in behaviourism.
Tests
and examinations in summative assessment perspective.
But, in
constructivist environment, assessment has important objectives, for the
evolution of the student, the evolution of the teacher, and evolution of the
education institution.
Assessment
has a new pedagogic tools, as a continues formative assessment, as well diagnosis evaluation, Self-assessment, group
assessment, pear assessment. Course assessment and Summative assessment
Finally
basic differences between Socratic behaviourism and constructivist.
·
Behaviourist learners learn the
master knowledge.
·
Constructivist learners learn and
build up their own knowledge.
3.
Practical outcome of the study: seminars and workshops, presented on DLCC-2017
international conference
In order to show the evolution
of methods and tecniques to digital age and caracterise the main aspects of
behaviourist and constructivist models we prepared a series of workshops that
were carried out, in order to study the development of new advanced pedagogical
tools and methods in education science, in a constructivist environment. The
workshops became the practical outcome of the studies, ccoordinated by
professor Antonio dos Reis. The seminars and workshops were held during DLCC
conference 2017 (Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Distance Learning,
Subtitle: Effective Development of Teachers’ Skills in the Area of ICT and
E-learning), in the Universuty of Silesia in Katowice, Poland.
The activities were prepared by the international
team of the IRNet project: Antonio Manuel Diogo dos Reis (The Graal Institute,
Portugal), Olga Yakovleva (Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia), Eugenia
Smyrnova-Trybulska (University of Silesia in katowice, Poland), Nataliia Morze (Borys
Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine).
The main objective of the first
keynote; “Evolution part I - from
Socrates behaviourism to digital constructivism” , was to present a synopsis of
the evolution of methods and techniques up to digital age and characterise the
main aspects of behaviourist and constructivist models, in order to study the
development of new advanced pedagogical tools and methods in education science,
in a constructivist environment. Consequently, the main question of the seminar
was – “How the evolution from Socrates behaviourism to digital constructivism
has led to a different way of teaching in the 21st century?” The video recording of the keynote is available at https://youtu.be/rp-suGGBKWU.
The main objective of the second keynote;
“Evolution part II - disruptive innovation in the school of the future
with a focus on ‘flipped classroom”, was to show the prospectives of the
technological evolution with the focus on education that involves the alteration
of teaching and lerning methodology. The recording of the keynote is available
at https://youtu.be/g_FJcFe2b3g.
Picture N. 3 Keynote “Evolution part II - disruptive
innovation in the school of the future with a focus on ‘flipped classroom’”.
Conclusion
The research presented in
this paper together with the results of the seminars and conferences are the part
of the IRNET project. The results are opening the gate for important
conclusions that are available in didactic videos and published papers. All the
results are in free access on the IRNet website (http://www.irnet.us.edu.pl) and https://goo.gl/5AU1dc for the scientific community, researchers and students.
Acknoledgements
The research leading to these results has received,
within the framework of the IRNet project, funding from the People Programme
(Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme
FP7/2007-2013/ under REA grant agreement No: PIRSES-GA-2013-612536.
References
Boyle, T. (1997). Design for Multimedia Learning. London: Prentice-Hall.
Briner, M. (1999). Behaviorism. University 01
Colorado,, consultado a 10 de Marde 2002 da World Wide Web: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/501behav.htm
Briner, M. (1999). Behaviorism. University
01 Colorado, consultado 10 Mar 2002 da World Wide Web: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/
faculty/psparks/theorists/501behav.htm
Briner, M. (1999). Constructivism.
University 01 Colorado, consultado 10 Mar 2002 da World Wide Web: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/
faculty/psparks/theorists/501const.htlm
Briner, M. (1999). Constructivism. University
01 Colorado, 1999b consultado a 10 de Mar de 2002 da World Wide Web:
http:/lcurriculum.calstatela.edu/facultylpsparksltheoristsl501 const.htm
Chute,
A. G., Thompson, M. M., Hancock, B. W. (1999). The McGraw-HiII Handbook of Distance Learning. New York:
McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-012028-5.
Downes S.
(2007). E-Learning 2.0 In Development, Consultado a 10 Jan 2008, from http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/elearning-20-in-development
Downes, S.
(2005). E-Learning 2.0, Consultado a 8 Dec 2007 da World Wide Web: http://www.downes.ca/post/31741
Downes, S. (2007).
E-learning 2.0, Consultado a 10 Jan 2008, da
World Wide Web: http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
Downes, S. (2007).
Free learning and control learning, Consultado a 8 Dec
2007 da World Wide Web: http://www.downes.ca/
Downes, S. (2007).
Web 3.0 and Learning, consultado a 10 Dec 2007 da World Wide Web:
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=36700
Fleming,
N. (2002). VARK and active learning.
consultado a 21 Mar 2004, da World Wide Web:
. http://www.active-learning-site.com/vark.htm
Funderstanding.
(1998). About Learning Theories: Behavíorísm. Livingston, NJ: consultado
a 10 March 2002 da World Wide Web:
http://www.funderstanding.com/learníng-theory_how2.html
Funderstanding.
(1998). About Learníng Theoríes: Construtívism. Livingston, NJ: consultado 10th
March 2002]. da World Wide Web:
http://www.funderstanding.com/learníng-theory_how1.html
Gardner,
H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of
multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Gilbert-Hunt
e Mclaine (2004). Learning styles and
Models, consultado a 20 Jul 2008 da World Wide Web:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JM9WjAGkcPIJ:gees.pbworks.com/f/EL%2Blearningstyles.rtf+Gilbert-Hunt+e+Mclaine&cd=9&hl=pt-PT&ct=clnk&gl=pt
Goleman D. (1999).
Trabalhar com inteligência emocional, Lisboa,Ed. Temas e Debates
Lima J., Capitão Z., (2003). E-learning e e-conteúdos. Porto: Centro Atlântico
Moore, M. G., Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
O'Reilly,
T. (2005). What Is web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. Consultado a 28 de Aug 2008, da World Wide Web:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Reigeluth, M. (1999). - Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of
Instructional Theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ISBN
0-8058-2859-1.
Reigeluth,
C. M., Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative Research: A Methodology for Creating And
Improving Design Theories. In Reigeluth, C. M. (1999) Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Indiana
University: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reis
A., (2008a). New technologies and
didactics in new methodologies environment, Innsbruck University press, ISNB
9733902571670.
Reis A., (2008b). - From e-learning 1.0 to e-learning 3.0
(e-learning generations), Izhevesk University International Conference -
Russia, ISBN 9785903140428
Reis A.,
X. Basogain, M. Olabe, K. Espinosa, Sixto Cubo, Florentino Blázquez y P. Pinto.
(2009). Sesiones online con grupos
reducidos: tutoría y trabajo colaborativo. II Jornadas de buenas
prácticas de e-learning. 25, June 2009, Bilbao, Spain. Campus
Virtual EHU, Vídeo disponível na World Wide Web: http://campusvirtual.ehu.es/eventos/buenas_practicas_2009/xabier.htm
Reis, A., X. Basogain, M. Olabe, K. Espinosa, y P. Pinto
(2009). Interactividad 3.0 en la e-educación. V Jornada del
Campus Virtual Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Buenas Prácticas e Indicios
de Calidad. Madrid February 2009. pp. 154-161,
ISBN: 978-84-7491-968-4. .
Reis
A. , Basogain, X. M. Olabe, K. Espinosa , (2009). Supporting the Education
with 3D environments and MUVEs. INTERACCIÓN
2009. X Congreso Internacional de Persona-Ordenador. III Jornadas sobre
Realidad Virtual y Entornos Virtuales, JOREVIR'2009. Septiembre 2009,
Barcelona, Spain. ISBN: 13:978-84-692-5005-1 X.
Rosenberg,
M. (2001). e-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age.
New York: McGraw-Hill,. ISBN 0-07-136268-1.
Rosenberg,
M. (2006). Beyond e-Learning. Pfeiffer USA ISBN 13: 978-0-7879-7757-3.
Siemens,
G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Consultado em 14 Sep
2008, da World Wide
Web:
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Silva, A. Josselyn, S., Kida, S., (2004). Inducible Repression of
CREB Function Disrupts Amygdala- Dependent Memory. Neurobiology of Learning and
Memory. não publicado (PDF)
Silva, A., Frankland, P., M. Ohno, E. Takahashi, A.
Chen, R. Costa, S. Kushner, (2003). Pharmacologically Regulated Induction of Silent
Mutations (PRISM): Combined pharmacological and genetic approaches for learning
and memory. Neuroscientist,.(PDF)
Silva, A., Wehner, J.M. (1996). Importance of Strain Differences in Evaluations of Learning
and Memory, Processes in Null Mutants. Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews.
Schuman,
L. (1996). Perspectives on instruction Educational Technology.
consultado 18 Aug. 2005 da World Wide Web:
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.html
Smith,
L. e Ragan, Tillman J. (1999). Instructional
Design. 2' ed. The University of Oklahoma, New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.,.
Verduin & Clark. (1991). Teorias do ensino à
distância, consultado a 20 der Out de 2006, da World Wide Web:
http://www.prof2000.pt/users/ajlopes/af22_ead/plano3.htm
Wilhelmsen,
S., Asmul, S., Meist Ad, 0. (1999). CSCL: Cognitivism. consultado 2 th
April 2005]. da World Wide Web:
http://www.uib.no/People/sinia/CSCL/web_struktur-834.htm
Wilhelmsen,
S., Asmul, S., Meist Ad, 0. (1999). CSCL: Behaviorism. consultado2 de
Abr de 2001 da World Wide Web:
http://www.uib.no/People/sinia/CSCL/web_struktur-835.htm
Wilhelmsen,
S., Asmul, S., Meist Ad, 0. (1999). CSCL: Constructivism. consultado
2 Abr 2005. da World Wide Web:
http://www.uib.no/People/sinia/CSCL/web_struktur-836.htm
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário