• As a result, Churchman developed five assumptions for a systems approach that systems thin” rel=”nofollow”>inkers should take in” rel=”nofollow”>into account when they consider and seek to understand a system (Churchman, 1968, p.29)
’’ 1. the total system objectives and, more specifically, the performance measures of the whole system;
2. the system’s environment: the fixed constrain” rel=”nofollow”>ints;
3. the resources of the system;
4. the components of the system, their activities, goals and measures of performance;
5. the management of the system.’’

PART 2
While Thorndike posited, “responses to stimuli are strengthened when followed by satisfyin” rel=”nofollow”>ing consequences” (p.114), his predecessor Pavlov established that “stimuli could be conditioned to elicit responses by bein” rel=”nofollow”>ing paired with other stimuli” (p.114). Guthrie suggested that a “contiguous relation between stimulus and response” (p.114) was created so that a behaviour was repeated whenever the associated situation occurred.
PART 3
– Accordin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to Shuell (1986), cognitive theorists see learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing as “an active, constructive, and goal-oriented process that is dependent upon the mental activities of the learner” (p.415), which contrasts to the behaviourist notion of the learner as a passive subject driven by environmental stimuli
– Hartley (1998) emphasised how “learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing results from in” rel=”nofollow”>inferences, expectations and makin” rel=”nofollow”>ing connections” and that “in” rel=”nofollow”>instead of acquirin” rel=”nofollow”>ing habits, learners acquire plans and strategies, and prior knowledge is important’ (p.18).

PART 4
– Schunk (2012) notes that “constructivism does not propound that learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing prin” rel=”nofollow”>inciples exist and are to be discovered and tested, but rather that learners create their own learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing” (p.230).
– Accordin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to Powell and Kalin” rel=”nofollow”>ina (2009), “Piaget’s cognitive constructivism theory in” rel=”nofollow”>incorporates the importance of understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing what each in” rel=”nofollow”>individual needs to get knowledge and learn at his or her own pace’’
PART 5
– Dewey de?ned re?ection as “active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in” rel=”nofollow”>in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends” (Dewey, 1933, p.9).
– This was evident in” rel=”nofollow”>in later descriptions of reflection, such as the one offered by Boud et al. (1985, p.19) who defin” rel=”nofollow”>ined it as “A generic term for those in” rel=”nofollow”>intellectual and affective activities in” rel=”nofollow”>in which in” rel=”nofollow”>individual engage to explore their experiences in” rel=”nofollow”>in order to lead to new understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ings and appreciation.”
– With the idea of reflection havin” rel=”nofollow”>ing become central to the notion of reflective learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, the latter came to be seen as “an in” rel=”nofollow”>intentional social process, where context and experience are acknowledged, in” rel=”nofollow”>in which learners are active in” rel=”nofollow”>individuals, wholly present, engagin” rel=”nofollow”>ing with others, open to challenge, and the outcome in” rel=”nofollow”>involves transformation as well as improvement for both in” rel=”nofollow”>individuals and their environment” (Brockbank and McGill, p.36)
PART 6
In addition, Maqsood, Fin” rel=”nofollow”>inegan and Walker (2001) identified five case studies within” rel=”nofollow”>in the construction in” rel=”nofollow”>industry where managers and/or contractors could benefit from undertakin” rel=”nofollow”>ing a SSM to ensure more was learned about the “structures, processes, perceptions and beliefs” (p. 4)

PART 7
– For example, Flemin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and Hiple (2004) poin” rel=”nofollow”>inted out that earlier conventional defin” rel=”nofollow”>initions of DE were applied to contexts where there was physical distance between the tutor and the student requirin” rel=”nofollow”>ing them to use a method of communication that could bridge time and/or space. However, as communication technologies advanced, defin” rel=”nofollow”>initions became in” rel=”nofollow”>increasin” rel=”nofollow”>ingly characterised by “additional criteria and more fin” rel=”nofollow”>inely drawn distin” rel=”nofollow”>inctions” (Flemin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and Hiple, 2004, p. 64).

PART 8
– For a formal and more precise defin” rel=”nofollow”>inition, an ODE can be defin” rel=”nofollow”>ined as “an educational modality that main” rel=”nofollow”>inly takes place mediated by in” rel=”nofollow”>interactions via the Internet and associated technologies” (Borba et al., 2010, p. 1).

PART 9
To ensure clarity, terms commonly associated in” rel=”nofollow”>in the discourse within” rel=”nofollow”>in which ODE is embedded are explain” rel=”nofollow”>ined in” rel=”nofollow”>in the table below:
Open Learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing (OL) (Bates, 2005, p.5):
• “Open learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing is primarily a goal, or an educational policy.
• “An essential characteristic of open learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing is the removal of barriers to learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing” (in” rel=”nofollow”>includin” rel=”nofollow”>ing prior qualifications and support for learners with disabilities)
• Ideally, it should be universally accessible. Thus it “must be scalable as well as flexible”
• Suitable technologies must be available to facilitate OL

DE (DE) (Tomei, 2010, p.82):
• “A generic term that in” rel=”nofollow”>includes the range of teachin” rel=”nofollow”>ing/learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing strategies used by correspondence colleges, open universities, distance departments of conventional colleges or universities, and distance train” rel=”nofollow”>inin” rel=”nofollow”>ing units of corporate providers.”
• “It is a term for the education of those who choose not to attend the schools, colleges and universities of the world but study at their home, or sometimes at their workplace.”

Flexible Learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing (FL) (Bates, 2005, p.5):
• FL “is the provision of learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing in” rel=”nofollow”>in a flexible manner, built around the geographical, social and time constrain” rel=”nofollow”>ints of in” rel=”nofollow”>individual learners, rather than those of an educational in” rel=”nofollow”>institution”

• FL “may in” rel=”nofollow”>include DE, but it also may in” rel=”nofollow”>include deliverin” rel=”nofollow”>ing face-to-face train” rel=”nofollow”>inin” rel=”nofollow”>ing in” rel=”nofollow”>in the workplace or openin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the campus longer hours or organizin” rel=”nofollow”>ing weekend or summer schools’’.

Onlin” rel=”nofollow”>ine Education (Tomei, 2010, p.166):
• “A web-based approach to education in” rel=”nofollow”>in which students access onlin” rel=”nofollow”>ine resources and communicate with in” rel=”nofollow”>instructors and other students through computer- mediated communication.”
• “Onlin” rel=”nofollow”>ine education can be part of DE, but onlin” rel=”nofollow”>ine education does not encompass DE.”

E-learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing (Tomei, 2010, p.86):
• “Allows for Internet-enabled learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing or DE over communication networks. It in” rel=”nofollow”>involves the use of network or Internet technologies to create, deliver, and facilitate learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing anytime and anywhere.”
• “E-learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing allows delivery of in” rel=”nofollow”>individualized, comprehensive, complex, and dynamic learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing content in” rel=”nofollow”>in real time, aidin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the development of communities of knowledge and lin” rel=”nofollow”>inkin” rel=”nofollow”>ing learners and practitioners with experts.”

– One particular source of confusion is the conflation of e-learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and DE, which encompasses ODE (Guri-Rosenbilt & Gros, 2011). E-learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, which is related to in” rel=”nofollow”>instructional technology (Larremendy-Joerns & Lein” rel=”nofollow”>inhardt, 2006) is not totally aimed at distance learners (Guri-Rosenbilt & Gros, 2011). Indeed, “most higher education in” rel=”nofollow”>institutions use the new technologies to enhance classroom encounters rather than to adopt a distance teachin” rel=”nofollow”>ing pedagogy” (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009, p.108).

PART 10
Perhaps, the critique of Moore and Kearsley’s model offered by Schaffer (2005, p.6) ‘’Although they clearly have a systems view in” rel=”nofollow”>in min” rel=”nofollow”>ind, diagrams of this structure cannot begin” rel=”nofollow”>in to capture the full complexity of the DE system’’

PART 11
Due to the aim of this study that is to assess SSM-Mode 2 as a learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing process to explore situation in” rel=”nofollow”>in ODE from the cultural perspective of Chin” rel=”nofollow”>ina. SSM-Mode 2 has more emphasis on understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing a problematic situation from multiple stakeholders’ and cultural perspectives. So, the researcher classified ODE issues in” rel=”nofollow”>into themes that consider different stakeholders views and cultural context of ODE. These issues have enough thematic similarity to be attributable, with a degree of relevance, to in” rel=”nofollow”>institutional, technological, cultural and learners themes. Institutional issues represent problems face in” rel=”nofollow”>institutions’ stakeholders such as managers, designers and tutors. Technological issues can face multiple stakeholders in” rel=”nofollow”>involved in” rel=”nofollow”>in ODE and affect their activities. Cultural issues represent social and political problems encountered in” rel=”nofollow”>in ODE system while learners’ issues represent personal issues of ODE students.

PART 12
Dimensions in” rel=”nofollow”>in E-Learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing Issues
1. Institutional Issues affectin” rel=”nofollow”>ing admin” rel=”nofollow”>inistrative affairs, academic affairs, and student services related to e-learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing
2. Management Main” rel=”nofollow”>intenance of learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing environment and distribution of in” rel=”nofollow”>information
3.Technological Issues with technology in” rel=”nofollow”>infrastructure in” rel=”nofollow”>in e-learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing environments, in” rel=”nofollow”>includin” rel=”nofollow”>ing in” rel=”nofollow”>infrastructure plannin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, hardware and software
4. Pedagogical Teachin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing issues, such as content analysis, audience analysis, goal analysis, media analysis, design approach, organization and learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing strategies
5. Ethical Social and political in” rel=”nofollow”>influence, cultural diversity, bias, geographical diversity, learner diversity, digital divide, etiquette, legal issues
6. Interface Design Overall appearance of e-learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing programs, page and site design, content design, navigation, accessibility, usability testin” rel=”nofollow”>ing
7. Resource Design Onlin” rel=”nofollow”>ine support and resources for meanin” rel=”nofollow”>ingful learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing
8. Evaluation Learner assessment, evaluation of in” rel=”nofollow”>instruction and learnin” rel=”nofollow”>ing environment

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us