Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
p. 3
2.2. Learning paradigms
An understanding of the existing learning paradigms is essential for performing an analysis of the current state of VR applications in higher education. Thus, we introduce the main ideas behind the existing learning paradigms. Literature distinguishes between behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (Schunk, 2012). Other scholars also include experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2012) to this list and, recently, connectivism has been introduced as a new learning paradigm (Kathleen Dunaway, 2011; Siemens, 2014). Each learning paradigm has developed various theories about educational goals and outcomes (Schunk, 2012). Each of these theories also offers a different perspective on the learning goals, motivational process, learning performance, transfer of knowledge process, the role of emotions, and implications for the teaching methods.
Behaviorism assumes that knowledge is a repertoire of behavioral responses to environmental stimuli (Shuell, 1986; Skinner, 1989). Thus, learning is considered to be a passive absorption of a predefined body of knowledge by the learner. According to this paradigm, learning requires repetition and learning motivation is extrinsic, involving positive and negative reinforcement. The teacher serves as a role model who transfers the correct behavioral response.
Cognitivism understands the acquisition of knowledge systems as actively constructed by learners based on pre-existing prior knowledge structures. Hence, the proponents of cognitivism view learning as an active, constructive, and goal-oriented process, which involves active assimilation and accommodation of new information to an existing body of knowledge. The learning motivation is intrinsic and learners should be capable of defining their own goals and motivating themselves to learn. Learning is supported by providing an environment that encourages discovery and assimilation or accommodation of knowledge (Shuell, 1986),RN23. Cognitivism views learning as more complex cognitive processes such as thinking, problem-solving, verbal information, concept formation, and information processing. It addresses the issues of how information is received, organized, stored, and retrieved by the mind. Knowledge acquisition is a mental activity consisting of internal coding and structuring by the learner. Digital media, including VR-based learning can strengthen cognitivist learning design (Dede, 2008). Cognitive strategies such as schematic organization, analogical reasoning, and algorithmic problem solving will fit learning tasks requiring an increased level of processing, e.g. classifications, rule or procedural executions (Ertmer & Newby, 1993) and be supported by digital media (Dede, 2008).
Constructivism posits that learning is an active, constructive process. Learners serve as information constructors who actively construct their subjective representations and comprehensions of reality. New information is linked to the prior knowledge of each learner and, thus, mental representations are subjective (Fosnot, 2013; Fosnot & Perry, 1996). Therefore, constructivists argue that the instructional learning design has to provide macro and micro support to assist the learners in constructing their knowledge and engaging them for meaningful learning. The macro support tools include related cases, information resources, cognitive tools, conversation, and collaboration tools, and social or contextual support. A micro strategy makes use of multimedia and principles such as the spatial contiguity principle, coherence principle, modality principle, and redundancy principle to strengthen the learning process. VR-based learning fits the constructivist learning design (Lee & Wong, 2008; Sharma, Agada, & Ruffin, 2013). Constructivist strategies such as situated learning, cognitive apprenticeships, and social negotiation are appropriate for learning tasks demanding high levels of processing, for instance, heuristic problem solving, personal selection, and monitoring of cognitive strategies (Ertmer & Newby, 1993).
Experientialism describes learning as following a cycle of experiential stages, from concrete experience, observation and reflection, and abstract conceptualization to testing concepts in new situations. Experientialism adopts the constructivist’s point of view to some extent—e.g., that learning should be drawn from a learner’s personal experience. The teacher takes on the role of a facilitator to motivate learners to address the various stages of the learning cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2012).
Connectivism takes into account the digital-age by assuming that people process information by forming connections. This newly introduced paradigm suggests that people do not stop learning after completing their formal education. They continue to search for and gain knowledge outside of traditional education channels, such as job skills, networking, experience, and access to information, by making use of new technology tools (Siemens, 2014).
“Shifts in students’ learning style will prompt a shift to active construction of knowledge through mediated immersion.”-Chris Dede
The theory of constructivist-based learning, according to Dr. Seymour Papert, “is grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information ‘poured’ into their heads.”
Moreover, constructionism asserts that people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as computer programs, animations, 3D modeling, creating spatial environments in virtual reality or building robots).”
Technologies like virtual reality, especially for Gen Z students’, provides avenues that allow them to engage in a social, collaborative, and active learning environment.
Virtual reality, especially when combined with powerful storytelling, allows the student to participate in the story, develop empathy to experiences outside their current realm of understanding and allows them to be fully immersed in their own exploration and learning.
Arshad, M., & Akram, M. S. (2018). Social Media Adoption by the Academic Community: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Evidence From Developing Countries. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3500
Building on the social constructivist paradigm and technology acceptance model, we propose a conceptual model to assess social media adoption in academia by incorporating collaboration, communication, and resource sharing as predictors of social media adoption, whereas perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness act as mediators in this relationship.
According to the latest social media statistics, there are more than 2 billion Facebook users, more than 300 million Twitter users, more than 500 million Google+ users, and more than 400 million LinkedIn users (InternetLiveStats, 2018).
although social media is rapidly penetrating into the society, there is no consensus in the literature on the drivers of social media adoption in an academic context. Moreover, it is not clear how social media can impact academic performance.
Social media platforms have significant capability to support the social constructivist paradigm that promotes collaborative learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Perceived usefulness (PU) – This was defined by Fred Davis as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance“.
Perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) – Davis defined this as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort” (Davis 1989).
proposing a Social Media Adoption Model (SMAM) for the academic community
Social media platforms provide an easy alternative, to the academic community, as compared to official communications such as email and blackboard. my note: this has been established as long as back as in 2006 – https://www.chronicle.com/article/E-Mail-is-for-Old-People/4169. Around the time, when SCSU announced email as the “formal mode of communication).Thus, it is emerging as a new communication and collaboration tool among the academic community in higher education institutions (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010). Social media has greatly changed the communication/feedback environment by introducing technologies that have modified the educational perspective of learning and interacting (Prensky, 2001).
the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) have been used to assess individuals’ acceptance and use of technology. According to the Technology Acceptance Model, perceived usefulness and perceived ease are the main determinants of an individual’s behavioral intentions and actual usage (Davis, 1989).
Perceived usefulness, derived from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), is the particular level that an individual perceives that they can improve their job performance or create ease in attaining the targeted goals by using an information system. It is also believed to make an individual free from mental pressure (Davis, 1989).
Perceived ease of use can be defined as the level to which an individual believes that using a specific system will make a task easier (Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk, 2012) and will reduce mental exertion (Davis, 1989). Venkatesh (2000) posits this construct as a vital element in determining a user’s behavior toward technology. Though generally, there is consensus on the positive effect of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on users’ attitude towards social media, it is not yet clear which one of these is more relevant in explaining users’ attitude towards social media in the academic community (Lowry, 2002). Perceived ease of use is one of the eminent behavioral beliefs affecting the users’ intention toward technology acceptance (Lu et al., 2005). The literature suggests that perceived ease of use of technology develops a positive attitude toward its usage (Davis, 1989).
Collaborative learning is considered as an essential instructional method as it assists in overcoming the communication gap among the academic community (Bernard, Rubalcava, & St-Pierre, 2000). The academic community utilizes various social media platforms with the intention to socialize and communicate with others and to share common interests (Sánchez et al., 2014; Sobaih et al., 2016). The exchange of information through social media platforms help the academic community to develop an easy and effective communication among classmates and colleagues (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social media platforms can also help in developing communities of practice that may help improve collaboration and communication among members of the community (Sánchez et al., 2014). Evidence from previous work confirms that social media platforms are beneficial to college and university students for education purposes (Forkosh-Baruch & Hershkovitz, 2012). Due to the intrinsic ease of use and usefulness of social media, academics are regularly using information and communication technologies, especially social media, for collaboration with colleagues in one way or the other (Koh & Lim, 2012; Wang, 2010).
“Professors do not engage students enough, if at all, when trying to innovate the classroom. It’s shocking how out of touch they can be, just because they didn’t take the time to hear their students’ perspectives.”
The article and the excellent comments underneath the article do not address the possibility of cultural differences. E.g., when article cites the German research, it fails to acknowledge that the US culture is pronouncedly individualistic, whereas other societies are more collective. For more information pls consider:
Ernst, C. T. (2004). Richard E. Nisbett. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why. Personnel Psychology, (2), 504.
Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it : why schools and cultures count / Richard E. Nisbett. New York : W.W. Norton & Co., c2009.
The article generalizes, since another omission is the subject-oriented character of the learning process: there are subjects, where lecture might be more prevalent and there are some where project learning, peer instruction and project-based learning might be more applicable.
p. 18 Knowledge for constructivism cannot be imposed or transferred intact from the mind of one knower to the mind of another. Therefore, learning and teaching cannot be synonymous: we can teach, even well, without having students learn
p. 19 In the traditional approach, the instructional designer analyses the conditions – such as the content, the learner, and the instructional setting – which bear on the instructional system, in preparation for the specification of intended learning outcomes. In the constructivist approach, the instructional content cannot be pre-specified. Constructivist designers avoid the breaking down of context into component parts as traditional instructional designers do, but are in favour of environments in which knowledge, skills, and complexity exist naturally.
The goal, for instance, is not to teach a particular version of history, but to teach someone how to think like a historian.
p. 19 In traditional instruction, this phase involves the design of a sequence to achieve specified performance objectives.
Yiasemina Karagiorgi