Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4622] A late contribution
From: David Jones (d.jones@cqu.edu.au)
Date: Fri 21 Mar 2003 - 01:54:10 MET
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:54:10 +1000 From: David Jones <d.jones@cqu.edu.au> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4622] A late contribution
Gday All,
Thanks for Mark for kicking off and driving the discussion. Thanks also
to all the contributors. I have found this to be an interesting and
thought provoking discussion.
I have found it difficult to keep up and digest all of the
contributions. This may show in some of my comments below.
Ive tried to break this up into sections to make it more readable. The
sections are
- Theory and theory development elsewhere
- Types of theory
- Theory/praxis relationship
- Different theoretical perspectives statement 9
- Informing theory from other disciplines
- Is technology neutral statement 3
- The focus on learning statements 4 and 10
- A blurb on Information Systems Design Theories for eLearning
- References
After this discussion closes, where then for discussion/development of
theory for eLearning? Are there any plans or interest in taking this
discussion into a more formal medium for publication?
David.
*Theory and Theory Development Elsewhere*
Were not the first group to consider theory and attempt to develop
theory. Some references from other disciplines that might useful (there
are many others)
- Academy of Management Review (1989, 14(4))
- Administrative Science Quarterly (1995, 40(3))
- Information Systems (Gregor 2002)
*Types of Theory*
Gregor (Gregor 2002) presents a categorization of theory based on the
primary purpose the theory is intended to serve. I have found it useful
when thinking about theory.
The scheme describes five different inter-related types of theory
1. Theory for analysing and describing
Naming and classification type theories aimed at describing what is, e.g.
typologies, taxonomies and frameworks.
2. Theory for understanding.
Theories that explain how and why but not in a way that enables prediction
about the future. e.g. actor-network theory (Tatnall and Gilding 1999) and
structuration theory (Giddens 1984) Also work employing research
approaches such as case studies or interpretive field studies.
3. Theory for predicting.
Theories which predict outcomes from a set of explanatory factors without
actually knowing why. e.g. some medical theories.
4. Theory for explaining and predicting
The traditional view of theory.
5. Theory for design and action
Normative/prescriptive theory that provides guidelines or principles
that can be
followed in practice.
What type of theory are we trying to develop here?
*The theory/praxis relationship*
At odd times during the discussion there has been the odd lamentation
about the quality/state of much of the literature from practitioners.
And I admit that there is much to lament.
However, I also believe that practice has much to contribute to theory.
Practice can precede theory, e.g. the invention of the airfoil came
before the science of aerodynamics.
There is also the problem that most practitioners do not place a high
value on educational theory (Reeves 1999). While there are many reasons
for this I think one of the reasons is that much theory does not deal
directly with a lot of the real world problems that practitioners face.
Which is not surprising given that theory is an abstraction.
How is the theory being developed here going to be any different? How is
it going to address the practitioner/researcher divide?
*Different theoretical perspectives*
As mentioned by others theory provides a mental model of the world, a
lens through with which to view the world. Theories are abstractions
that reduce complexity by ignoring certain aspects. However, as with
all abstraction, some detail is lost. Consequently different situations
are better suited to different theories. People familiar with different
situations will tend to generate and believe different theories.
It would appear that the discussion about statement 9, whether or not
curriculum is required, is an example of the influence of different
perspectives.
Id suggest that working for an institution involved in eLearning tends
to lead one to believe in the need for a curriculum. Since the
characteristics of the institutional context require it. But, as Stephen
has argued and demonstrated, eLearning can occur outside the constraints
of institutions or the requirement for a curriculum.
Perhaps this is a problem with the setting of the boundaries of this theory?
*Informing theory from other disciplines*
Taking the different perspectives/different theory argument a bit
further I would suggest that the successful implementation of e-learning
requires input from a range of different disciplines and fields
including: education, HCI, graphic design, communications, information
systems, computer science and a range of others. I can see examples of
how theories from each of these fields can make for better eLearning.
For example, my current work is trying to develop an Information Systems
Design Theory for eLearning. The aim in developing an ISDT for
e-learning is partially intended to address the growing disquiet about
the mismatch between the features provided by commercial e-learning
tools and the requirements of e-learning practitioners.
The argument is that the common approach currently being used to build
and support the information systems side of eLearning has some problems.
It doesnt necessarily fit well with the requirements. The common
complaints you hear from practitioners about the features of commercial
LMSes and their implementation within organizations are a result of this
misfit.
An ISDT seeks to draw on kernel theories to offer a better approach.
For interest, a blurb about ISDTs is included at the end.
*Statement 3 Is technology neutral?*
Like Bev Im not convinced that technology is entirely neutral. As Bev
has argued technology, particularly software, encapsulates the beliefs,
philosophies and abstractions of the authors of that software. The
affordances (Gaver 1991) offered by technology can strongly suggest
specific approaches.
Giddens (Giddens 1984) structuration theory and other related
theories/work (Orlikowski 1992) takes the influence of technology a
little further and suggest that technology is both constituted by human
agency and helps constitute institutional practice.
I think there is some evidence of this in the increasing trend, at least
in Australia, for institutions to be advertising for WebCT Designers
or Blackboard Administrators . Another example could be the trend for
online learning to be equated to approaches which combine online
quizzes, a discussion board and some HTML content. i.e. the easiest form
of online learning supported by the common commercial LMSes.
*Focus on learning*
A number of the statements appear to concentrate solely on learning as
the aim or influence of eLearning. e.g. Statement 4, eLearning advances
primarily through the successful implementation of pedagogical innovation .
Im not going to argue that learning isnt important consideration for
eLearning. However, I would like to suggest that, certainly within an
organizational context, there are many other factors which will
influence the success or otherwise of eLearning.
For example, most of the advances in eLearning that Im familiar with
from my institution are being driven more by reducing workload for
teaching staff or providing similar non-pedagogical advantages for
students. This is largely due to some contextual issues at my
institution but it also has some theoretical support in the form of
diffusion theory (Rogers 1995).
Drawing on diffusion theory and Actor-Network Theory I would suggest
that statement 10, Only pedagogical advantages will provide a lasting
rationale for implementing eLearning approaches is a fairly limited
view of the factors required to ensure that an innovation will have a
long term life.
Pedagogical advantages are very important. But if teaching staff see
themselves as hugely overworked and unrewarded for good/innovative
teaching and learning they arent likely to adopt eLearning in any
meaningful way.
*Blurb on ISDTs for eLearning*
This is a modified blurb from a publication of mine. It sets the stage
for the work Im doing as part of my thesis. I believe it is somewhat
related and shows that theories for eLearning may be required from other
disciplines.
Information Systems (IS) is a field of research concerned with the
effective design, delivery, use and impact of information technology in
organizations and society (Avison and Fitzgerald. 1995). Due to its
nature the implementation of eLearning requires the support of an
appropriate Information System (IS). The characteristics of eLearning,
in an institutional context, make the design and implementation of an
appropriate IS a difficult and time-consuming task that currently has
little theoretical guidance. In an attempt to address this problem this
paper develops theory-based principles, in the form of an Information
Systems Design Theory (ISDT), for eLearning.
Information Systems Design Theories (ISDTs), first explicated by Walls
et al. (Walls, Widmeyer et al. 1992), are prescriptive theories
developed to provide solutions to specialized classes of IS design
problems (Markus, Majchrzak et al. 2002). For practitioners ISDTs are
beneficial because they increase development reliability and the
likelihood of success by providing principles, derived from kernel
theories, that limit the range of system features and development
activities to a more manageable set (Markus, Majchrzak et al. 2002). As
a theory the principles generated as part of an ISDT are also open to
empirical testing and thus can form a basis for further research.
*References*
Avison, D. E. and G. Fitzgerald. (1995). Information Systems
Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. London, McGraw-Hill.
Gaver, W. (1991). Technology Affordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through
technology, New Orleans, ACM Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Gregor, S. (2002). "Design Theory in Information Systems." Australian
Journal of Information Systems: 14-22.
Markus, M. L., A. Majchrzak, et al. (2002). "A Design Theory for Systems
that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes." MIS Quarterly 26(3): 179-212.
Orlikowski, W. (1992). "The duality of technology: Rethinking the
concept of technology in organizations." Organization Science 3(3): 398-427.
Reeves, T. (1999). A Research Agenda for Interactive Learning in the New
Millennium. Proceedings of EdMedia'99, Seattle, Washington, AACE.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, The Free Press.
Tatnall, A. and A. Gilding (1999). Actor-Network Theory and Information
Systems Research. Proceedings of the 10th Australian Conference on
Information Systems.
Walls, J. G., G. R. Widmeyer, et al. (1992). "Building an Information
System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS." Information Systems Research
3(1): 36-58.
-- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Jones (d.jones@cqu.edu.au) | "You can't trust code that you Informatics and Communication | did not totally create Central Queensland University | yourself." Rockhampton, Australia | -- Ken Thompson. ------------ http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/ --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/ Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html ---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri 21 Mar 2003 - 04:18:57 MET