The time I spent exploring topic four has been frustrating but also fun and filled with curiosity. I am still in the pondering phase of making sense of the Gilly Salmon five-stage model. I have spent most of my time trying to figure out how the model is designed and how I can understand and approach the model.
My first encounter with the model left me very confused. And I had a strong feeling that I didn’t like it very much. I could not tell why – it was just something with how the model is designed that did not make sense to me. So for me, the first days were all about trying to figure out why I reacted the way I did. Also at this time PBL group 4 decided that we will work with this model and try to combine scenario one and two (to put a spotlight on the role of the facilitator in the five stage model). This was an eye opener for me, because now I discovered one thing that might be a reason for why this model makes me feel confused. My confusion has to do with how the model seems to be a structured linear model for learning, in which interaction and participation is confined to five boxes and when he participants are done with the first tasks in box one (stage one) the learners take a step into the next box (stage two). This means everyone is moving along at the same pace in the learning process, and thus perhaps assuming everyone learns at the same pace. Adding to this confusion is the role of the facilitator, that is: what is the role of the facilitator in the model? What can the facilitator do (and what are the boundaries in the learning process that the model impose on the participants?)? Can the facilitator go back and fourth between the stages within work on the same topic or is the progress in one topic straightforward and set to go from A à Z (in two weeks time)? These were some of the concerns and questions I experienced, and we discussed some of these questions in the PBL group. In this process, Malin (facilitator) asked more questions and encouraged us to explore the model in more detail. Also, the group decided to add an extra session (synchronous meeting) on the following Monday morning to continue the discussion (so perhaps there is some flexibility in the five stage model – that is if you view the ONL181 course as building on the five stage model).
Well, to further explain my confusion with the model I think it is important to mention that I come from a tradition of understanding learning from a constructivist approach (building on work by for example Vygotsky, and Lave and Wenger). Meaning that learning is not a linear structured timeline in which instruction takes place to make learners acquire knowledge (like passive reception), but it is an active process that is situated/contextualised and learners constructs knowledge in constant ongoing social negotiations (that go back and forth) with other participants. The learner is not a blank slate (not tabula rasa), but brings previous experiences, interpretations and cultural practices to the table.
So when looking at the design of the five-stage model – and later on reading about the five-stage model it got me confused. I have not (yet) done any literature review of this model (or related concepts), but I have read comments on the model and it seems there are helpful insights that can spark further investigation of the model. For example, reading a paper by Anita Monty and Henrik Kaas from the IT learning center at University of Copenhagen (https://itlc.science.ku.dk/english/papers/model/), they write that Gilly Salmon: “believes and have experienced, that for online learning to be successful and happy, participants need to be supported through a structured developmental process”. And the authors continue the argument by stating that the model is a scaffolding model, and now it becomes interesting – what does this mean?
They write: “The model is a “scaffolding” model. Scaffolding means gradually building on participant’s previous experience. A structured learning scaffold offers essential support and development to participants at each stage as they build up expertise in learning online.” Thus the questions emerges, can a scaffolding model come from constructivist approach? At the moment I have read a paper by Malik (2017) and he discuss scaffolding and the relationship to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. But Malik (2017) also points to problems and issues with scaffolding, such as:
– “The first concern is to do with connotations surrounding the metaphor itself, particularly the issue
regarding the literalisation of the metaphor. Examples of such concerns include “imposition of a
structure on students” (as quoted in Stone, 1998a), “knowledge being shaped by adults according to
a fixed ‘blueprint,’” (as quoted in Stone, 1998b) and how scaffolding is “a planned event in construction,
while in an educational setting, ‘the support sometimes falls apart rather suddenly and at inopportune
times’” (as quoted in Maggioli, 2013)” (Malik 2017:13)
– ”Consequently, new teachers might misconstrue the metaphor’s true objective as being rigid and instructive rather than contingent and adaptive. More specifically, it can suggest a one-way dialogue “wherein the scaffolder constructs the scaffold alone and presents it for the use of the novice” (as quoted in Verenikina, 2004); it suggests that the instructor should speak at the student and not with the student which would imply a return to the traditional directed instruction where the student is considered as a passive entity in the teaching process, a notion completely antithetical to the co-constructive relationship between the instructor and learner in the Vygotskian paradigm.” (Malik 2017:13)
That said, what further sparked investigation of the model was the discussion in the PBL group 4 in which Malin suggested that the linear structure of the model may have something to do with adding tech to the learning process. This is also something that Monty and Kaas (2005/2013) mentions:
”For online learners there is more than the subject to learn: They need to learn the technical way of using the e-learning system while they are studying in it. It is therefore important to provide a model of e-learning in which the participant very fast could explore the system and also learn how to communicate online.”
Hence, this can be explored further and it may also be an issue/a consequence of how the five-stage model is designed (50/50 on technical support and e-moderating – and thus both can be perceived as linear learning processes….).
To conclude this post, I am still in the process of grasping the model and asking many questions. I don’t yet have a clear understanding of the model that I can articulate in this blog post – but will continue to explore this topic. For now I am pondering about what happens to the model if it is viewed as linear and structured (more of a passive reception of knowledge) or if it is viewed as a scaffolding model (from a Vygostkyan approach) – and what does this mean for how to understand learning – how can we talk about the five-stage model from a PBL approach?
References
Salmon, G (2013) The Five Stage Model.
Monty and Kaas (2005/2013):
Malik, Shoaib Ahmed (2017) Revisiting and re-representing scaffolding: The two gradient model. Cogent Education 4:1.