Reflecting on recent readings from Sawyer’s text—Chapters 1, 2, and 5, my current research ideas and questions on active learning strategies and techniques via instructional design for asynchronous online courses have become more refined and focused. All three chapters emphasize the importance of constructivist theories, particularly the role of social interaction and collaboration in knowledge construction. Chapter 1 highlights Kafai’s (2006) and Freire’s (1968) views on constructivism. Chapter 2 delves into Vygotsky’s social constructivism. Chapter 5 discusses the application of metacognitive strategies to support constructivist learning. All three chapters share a common focus on enhancing education through the principles of learning sciences (LS). However, each chapter brings a unique perspective and emphasis on different theoretical frameworks and specific focal points to support my research.
My original Statement of Intent involves evaluating issues in online learning environments, particularly the challenges in promoting student interactions and engagement through asynchronous online course settings. My research aims to:
1) Investigate active learning strategies and techniques via instructional design for asynchronous online courses to encourage self-regulation, increase participation, and engage students in active learning activities.
2)Address gaps in the design of asynchronous online learning environments that foster a sense of community, belonging, and engagement.
The readings from Sawyer’s three chapters have significantly influenced my perspective, providing a stronger theoretical foundation and more precise focus for my research.
In Chapter 1, Sawyer (2022) defines that learning science emphasizes the importance of deeper conceptual understanding, connected learning, and designing learning environments that support cognitive and social processes for effective learning. This concept can be the cornerstone of my research. Freire’s perspective that “knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention” (Freire, 1968, p. 57) aligns with my research goals, reinforcing my commitment to investigating how asynchronous online environments can be redesigned to facilitate active, collaborative learning, aligning with the constructivist foundation of LS (Kafai, 2006; Sawyer, 2022; Nathan & Sawyer, 2022).
My research will explore how authentic practices can be integrated into asynchronous online learning to deepen understanding and foster connected learning. A key discovery in the reading is that students gain a deeper understanding when engaging in activities that mirror professional practices within a discipline, emphasizing the value of authentic experiences in educational standards (Sawyer, 2022). This insight has strengthened my resolve to develop designs that foster peer-to-peer interactions, especially in asynchronous courses, to encourage collaboration, shared learning experiences, and community-building among students, thus enhancing the quality of online education. I aim to utilize instructional design strategies and principles to create an online environment that supports meaningful interactions, leveraging insights from interaction analysis to understand how learner relationships and practices evolve over time (Sawyer, 2022).
Additionally, Nathan and Sawyer (2022) in Chapter 2 introduced five intellectual traditions in LS, which have helped me better shape my research ideas and questions for my doctoral studies. Pragmatist John Dewey emphasizes “child-centred pedagogy” and “the importance of inquiry,” suggesting that “[students]learn best when they interact with the world much as a scientist or philosopher does, by posing hypotheses and testing them against reality and reason” (p.30). This resonates with my intent to design online learning environments that are not just about content delivery but about fostering an inquiry-based, interactive experience. Incorporating Dewey’s principles can help in crafting online activities that encourage students to engage in meaningful inquiry, driving their own learning processes actively and collaboratively.
Constructivism, particularly the social constructivist views of Vygotsky, posits that the “knowledge construction process is inherently mediated by social interaction” (Nathan & Sawyer, 2022, p.31), which reinforces the necessity of peer engagement in online learning environments and aligns with my goal of fostering learner-learner interactions. Drawing on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which highlights the role of “social interaction and cultural tools were the primary drivers of intellectual development” (Nathan & Sawyer, 2022, p.32), my research will explore how to leverage digital tools to create a socially rich online learning environment. By integrating culturally relevant content and collaborative tools that facilitate meaningful social interactions, I aim to create online spaces where diverse students can learn from and with each other, reflecting the sociocultural dynamics that drive learning.
Situated Learning and Embodied, Extended, and Distributed Cognition provide a theoretical basis for my understanding of learning as deeply embedded within “physical and social contexts” (Nathan & Sawyer, 2022). This perspective reinforces my intention for the significance of designing learning environments that facilitate authentic interactions and engagement among learners, even in virtual settings. My intention to explore designs that support learner-learner interactions directly addresses the challenge posed by asynchronous learning environments, where opportunities for meaningful social interaction can be limited. Nathan and Sawyer (2022) highlight the importance of engaged community participation and a sense of belonging in driving learning. They explain that students construct meaning actively through collaboration, utilizing cognitive processes to manage social-emotional participation, resolve conflicts, and undergo conceptual changes. Furthermore, adopting the behaviours of a professional community enhances cognitive processes, helping students anchor their understanding in real-world contexts and authentic practices. My research aims to design online learning environments that embody these principles, fostering a sense of community and belonging among students.
Reading Chapter 5 about metacognition and self-regulated learning has prompted me to reconsider and refine some aspects of my doctoral research intent while affirming others. Initially, my application highlighted a commitment to improving online education by promoting meaningful learning experiences and addressing challenges in asynchronous learning environments, particularly regarding learner-learner interactions. This remains unchanged, as my core goal remains to explore designs that foster peer interactions to enhance collaboration and community-building in online education. Chapter 5 has deepened my understanding of how metacognitive processes, such as self-efficacy and metacognitive monitoring, can significantly influence learning outcomes. As the readings state, “self-efficacy involves learners monitoring their progress and evaluating the effectiveness of their strategies, while metacognition includes both real-time monitoring and retrospective evaluation of learning strategies” (Winne & Azevedo, 2022, p. 93). This emphasizes the importance of self-efficacy and metacognition in learning, which can be integrated into my research to design inline environments that encourage students’ self-regulation.
In addition, this chapter highlighted metacognitive strategies like “the ease of learning (EOL), the judgment of learning (JOL), and retrospective confidence judgments (RCJ)” (Winne & Azevedo, 2022, p.102), which are pivotal in guiding learning decisions and predicting performance. Understanding these strategies can help me investigate how online learning environments can prompt students to make informed decisions about their learning processes, thereby enhancing their self-regulation and engagement. By examining the role of these strategies, my research aims to reveal how students can better plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning in asynchronous online courses. The reading notes, “EOLs are associated with the planning phase of SRL…and are typically not predictive of task performance since they are made before learners actually operate on information” (Winne & Azevedo, 2022, p. 102). EOLs, associated with the planning phase of SRL, are crucial in the initial stages of learning. By understanding the role of EOLs, my research will focus on designing online activities that help students plan effectively, even if these judgments are not predictive of task performance. This is particularly relevant in asynchronous settings where students must independently navigate their learning paths.
In revising my statement of intent, I can now explicitly connect my research goals with insights from Chapter 5. For example, exploring how metacognitive strategies like JOLs can guide effective peer feedback mechanisms in asynchronous discussions aligns with the goal of fostering meaningful learner-learner interactions. By integrating findings on metacognitive monitoring and self-regulated learning into instructional design strategies, I aim to enhance the quality of online education by promoting active engagement and collaborative learning experiences among students from diverse backgrounds.
References
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences(pp. 35–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nathan, M.J. & Sawyer, R. K. (2022). Foundations of the Learning Sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 27–52). Chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2022). An Introduction to the Learning Sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1–24). Chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winne, P. H., & Azevedo, R. (2022). Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 93–113). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leave a Reply