s u s t a i n a b l e a p p r o a c h t o e l

8/14/2019 s u s t a i n a b l e a p p r o a c h t o e l

1/12

I T I S G O O D T O L A G B E H I N D ! A T L E A S T F O R N O W :

A S U S T A I N A B L E A P P R O A C H T O E - L E A R N I N G

By: Dr. Nader Y. Azab. Assistant Professor

University of Bahrain

[email protected]

Mobile: 39166799

Abstract:

To learn or not to learn that is the question! Could we borrow Shakespeares

famous quote with a twist to better fit the context of this conference? I guess we could.

Personally, I believe we should relate learning to well-being and existence.

In the wake of the twenty first century, the crowd is now moving vigorously towards

new terrain in learning E-learning. Some perceive it as a means of solving authentic

learning and performance problems, while other institutions are hopping onto the

bandwagon simply because they do not want to be left behind.

In this race, University of Bahrain (UOB) is no exception. This conference on e-

learning: a new era of language and culture, provides clear evidence of what people at

UOB feel towards this trend in education.

This monologue reflects on this presumed move in the educational arena within a

developing country context. It follows a qualitative path that pulls strings from literature

of consonant schools of thought here it is sustainability literature- and synthesizes

whatever audible for the field of learning. The argument escalates by building on a

conceptual model based in urban planning literature in an effort to reach a vision for

realizing a sustainable approach to e-learning. The ultimate goal of this presentation is to

reflect constructively on this trend in learning while considering our context as a

developing country.

Key words:

Developing countries, E-learning, Epistemology, Human development, Post-positivism,

Sustainability, Systems thinking.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/12

Introduction

Scene I: Its 2.30AM I logged to my computer, moments later, I was onlinewith my Bahraini instructor and another female student from Syria. I have been

facing some problems lately regarding my design development. Besides, I

havent been in touch with anyone of the group for almost a week now. I was

sick No big deal... attendance is not an issue for this virtual design studio

A Bahraini male

student

Scene II: Its course evaluation week. Its a real hustle for me at least- as an

instructor, running from one classroom to another collecting evaluation forms

for other instructors courses Why couldnt each instructor do his or her own

job!Instructor at

UOB

Scene III: I have to report to the deans office tomorrow morning. A student

has filed a complaint disputing her design studio grade and accusing me of

being unfair.

Instructor at UOB

These are not mere fiction, at least for the last two scenes. These incidents and a lot more

similar and even funnier take place on regular basis in universities scattered all over Less

Developed Countries (LDCs). However, scene I might be an exception at least for

now, it is just a dream hopefully not a nightmare!

A legible research question and a path

In the wake of the twenty first century, the crowd is moving vigorously towards new

terrain in learning e-learning. Some perceive it as a means of solving authentic learning

and performance problems, while other institutions are hopping onto the bandwagon

simply because they do not want to be left behind. In this race, University of Bahrain

(UOB) is no exception. This conference on e-learning: a new era of language and

culture, provides clear evidence of what people at UOB feel towards this trend ineducation.

When I first received the circular for this e-learning conference and went through its

themes, I paused a little. Not all that shines is gold. I said to myself. I felt there is

something in the air. What possibly could it be? I know a little about myself however, I

am not that type of person who would resort to change just for the sake of change. I kept

some distance and contemplated. Suddenly, the sustainability theme dominated my

thought and triggered a research question.

Are there any possible links between both worlds? May be and may be not! Personally, I

could not take no as an answer. What motivated me to start this search-for-a-link and


3/12

added more excitement to the venture is the disputed nature of both worlds

sustainability and e-learning. Both terms are open for epistemological debates,

fueled by different worldviews, political and socio-cultural perspectives. On one hand,

many disputes the role sustainability could offer to save Mother Nature. Simultaneously,

the role that e-learning could offer to change the face of our education has been

challenged and debated (Rogers, 2000) both are even.

Add to this a strong belief in the need for some sort of a change and transformation at

both personal and societal levels. Although sustainability literature might have things to

offer, this might not be that direct or simple. Using sustainability literature

metaphorically, the ultimate goal of this presentation is to reflect constructively on this

learning mode while considering a developing country context.

This monologue reflects on a presumed move in the educational arena within a

developing country context. It follows a qualitative path that pulls strings from literature

of consonant schools of thought here it is sustainability literature- and synthesizeswhatever audible for the field of e-learning The following sections present this path,

starting by contextualizing for my argument about a possible link between e-learning and

sustainability. Then, the argument escalates by building on a conceptual model based in

urban planning literature in an effort to reach a vision for realizing a sustainable approach

to e-learning.

Exploring the terrain: e-learning vs. sustainability

Any review for the literature should not be cast in stone. It serves mainly two ends.

First, it identifies gaps within current understanding and research. Second, it reveals

concepts that would help unfold research questions and guide prospective inquiry. Both

concepts sustainability and e-learning are presented through two alternate though

complementary lenses. The first is conventional the second lens is somewhat reflective

and inductive. It tries to explore possible new terrain for future inquiry.

As for e-Learning, it is another way of teaching and learning. In its broadest definition, it

includes instruction delivered via all electronic media including the Internet, intranets,

extranets, satellite broadcasts, audio/video tape, interactive TV, and CD-ROM.

(Govindasamy, 2002). Khan (2001) sees e-learning as synonymous with web-based

learning (WBL), Internet-based training (IBT), advanced distributed learning (ADL),

web-based instruction (WBI), online learning (OL) and open/flexible learning (OFL). E-

learning recognizes the dawn of a new era in educational provision. It acknowledges thechallenges of diversity in programs as well as the diversity of learners (Freire, 1994).

However, the current situation poses a serious challenge to any organization embarking

on implementing e-Learning. This could be referred to the misuse of Learning

Management Systems (LMS) in accordance with pedagogical principles of learning.

Accordingly, this hampers the process itself and parallel investments in this mode of

learning.

On the other hand, sustainability for those who might not recall- is a concept brought

back to the development scene in the late 1980s. In 1989, the United Nations World

Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defined it as meeting the


4/12

Sustainability

Dimensions,

Concerns,

A proaches

E-learning

Dimensions,

Concerns,

Approaches

Mix and Ma tch!

Speculate on possible

outcomes

S.E

S.E

S.E

S.E

Sustainable e-learning

needs of the present generation without comprising the needs of future generations

(Brundtland, 1989).

What really concerns our argument is that interpretations of sustainability and itsimplications have been contradictory. Some refer that to the term itself, which is

treacherously ambiguous (Lele, 1991). Others claim that the various interpretations of

sustainable development are caused not by poor understanding, but rather by ideological

differences and reluctance of many to acknowledge the implications of the underlying

message. The deliberate vagueness of the concept is a reflection of power politics and

political bargaining on the global and local scenes (Redclift, 1992). This has simply lead

to two possible interpretations to sustainability, hard or more radical aiming at

ecological

Fig (1): A sustainable e-learning approach: the possibilities.

and social transformation and justice (Friedmann, 1992) and soft, looking at more

sensitive growth.

Both worlds might actually converge: recalling a model:


5/12

By delineating briefly the realm of both worlds, one would expect the difficulty of

finding an exact definition for a possible sustainable e-learning approach. Fig (1) shows

the numerous possible combinations for such an effort.

The next task would be to detect a link that would help us explore the outlined research

question: Could we possibly reach a sustainable approach to e-learning in a less

developed country context ever? If this is attainable, what are its dimensions and

prospects for the future?

As risky as it might be, the process of exactly defining the image of a sustainable e-

learning approach needs an intellectual stretch beyond conventional approaches. In 1999,

the researcher has proposed what he called a force and filter model for understanding

urban form phenomena (Azab, 2000). This model could be a possible jumpstart for such

a mission. Fig (2) depicts this model, where each factor (ex. Socio-cultural, economic,

Fig (2): Force and filter model for understanding urban form (after Azab, 2000).

Factor 2

Final form

Existing

form

Factor n Factor 1

Filter 1

Filter 2

Filter n

Transformation

Feedback Filtered Impacts


6/12

political, technical etc.) could be conceptualized as a force exerting some sort of

pressure, and simultaneously acting as a filter or mediator for any other possible impacts

from other sources. These filters have different filtering capacities and cyclical

characteristics depending on the context of study and possible friction points between

these filters. Each filter should be seen as a web of interactions between infinite

subsystems. These filters have a synergistic effect on the filtered actions, i.e., their total

effect is larger than the sum of their single impacts. Consequently, the resulting urban

form exerts its own pressure and puts some constraints on these forces and filters. This

force and filter model reflects the importance of both contextual situation and systems-

thinking approaches.

E-learning and sustainability: implications of a model

How would this model provide guidance for someone trying to portray an image for a

presumed sustainable approach to e-learning? A simple answer would be to calibrate that

model.

Practically, it is more convenient to start this process by letting one of the identified

forces take the lead and initiate change. However, which force would initiate action or

change? From a theoretical standpoint, all forces are alike in their ability to carry out the

job. Depending on the situation, one force would take the lead, and a chain-reaction

takes place, resulting in certain outputs.

Sustainability might actually show-up in the model at two different scales or levels. The

first is tangible as an intervening factor, while the second is metaphorical. On the first

level, it could be represented as a factor within the model, i.e., a force and filter. By

studying the possible interactions among this and other contextual intervening factors,

one would reach a special understanding for a final learning mode. At this level,

sustainability will mostly show-up following the soft path, where allits aspects are there,

indexed and operationalized.

Outcomes here are more direct and mostly nonnegotiable. E-learning is our final product

and sustainability plays its role as a factor. In this case, one should define the exact

meanings of sustainability and its dimensions in order to proceed with the model. This

case seems satisfactory to positivists who are guided or misguided- with objectivity, and

other axioms of this school of thought. This echoes the soft sustainability path, where

change is unavoidable but predicted. However, what should interest us more is not a

specific outcome of a model, but the real interactions among forces, filters, and possibleeffects on the final product and vise versa.

Second and at a more abstract level, sustainability might be there as a state or a metaphor

for a better-desired life. Having this as a binding theme for this force and filter model,

the whole process would be elevated to another level of thinking and state of well-being.

This level puts values up-front. It is reflective, ethical and emphasizes integrity

(Niebanck, 1993). According to Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, integrity

means the state of being unimpaired or the quality or condition of being whole or

undivided.


7/12

Pro-hard sustainability thinkers believe in this state of being undivided. They refer this

missing whole as what really hinders change at both individual and societal levels.

They accuse humanity of being in a breathless race and a belief in parts, i.e.,

sustainability, at the expense of a whole, the wider community, and society by large.

Utopians, deep ecologists, ecofeminists, and a lot more schools of thought advocate for

believing and working for wholes rather than fragmented parts that are mere abstractions

leading to idolatry (treating as ultimate or whole that which is not ultimate or whole

(Daly and Cobb, 1994). These views actually converge and are triggered by post-

positivists worldview and their conceptualization to science and existence.

The second level the metaphorical level- accepts sustainability as a state of being. In

this case, the model works with whatever factors one would load, only on one condition

sustainability that endorses wholistic approaches and adopts integrity is the binding

theme. This alternative reflects the axioms of post-positivism. This metaphorical level

of interpretation persistently lends itself to more macro-scale issues these initially relateto human well-being, self-growth and development and ultimately societal change, i.e., a

sustainable future, the hard path. Fig (3) illustrates and example for the model.

Unfortunately, blueprints for a specific e-learning system would be difficult to come up

with, because all is susceptible to the interplay of forces and filters that shapes any

specific context. All outcomes for a learning mode of which e-learning is just a

possibility- are negotiable i.e., change is unavoidable though unpredictable. Only

through these

Filt

Tech. &

Innovation

Factors

Socio-cult.

Factors

Political

Factors

Economic

Factors

A Mode of Learning

E

c

o

n

o

m

i

Institutional

differences

Sustainability is in the Air



Factor

N


8/12

Fig (3): E-learning, the hard path implications of a model.

interactions and outcomes, e-learning could be conceptualized as a living and nurturing

phenomenon.

On the road to sustainable learning

My best hope was, that, between theory and practice, a true and a viable mode

of life mightbe struck out and that, even should we ultimately fail, the months

or years spent in the trialwould not have been wasted, either as regarded

passing enjoyment, or the experience which makes men wise.

(Nathaniel Hawthorne, quoted in Hayden,

1976).

Hawthorne here, talks modestly about hope, process, success and failure, joy and wisdom

and strives for a societal change or transformation if possible. His actions could be

justified only on try and error bases. What really concern him are the process and the

experience that make men and of course, women wise. These words ring some bells at a

time where loss of integrity, obsession with objectivity and a belief in parts at the

expense of an undivided whole dominate our living. This certainly deserves some

contemplation. His vision mostly echoes post-positivism and its axioms, where outcomes

are negotiated and subject to contextual situation change is unavoidable and difficult to

be accounted for, and subjectivity and d ifferences are appreciated and highly welcome.

My venture started on the premise of exploring a possible sustainable approach to e-

learning, its dimensions, and prospects for the future within an LDC context. Frustrating,

as it might be to some audience- this monologue is not intended to provide a blueprintfor such a proposal and would have never been. Argument here focuses on an

epistemological, more of a macro-scale level, where factors such as socio-cultural,

political, or economic are robust to other micro-scale level factors dealing with specific

details of a certain learning mode. Moreover, and from a post-positivist stand, no such

definitive answers or proposals would be ever recommended, simply because no one has

the rightanswer, all proposals are negotiable and debatable. The presented argument

intends only to refresh our minds and souls when dealing with this new e-visitor.

One -From a positivist stand- could have been highly motivated to develop some lengthy

sustainability indicators and checklists, blueprints for successful e-learning strategies, e-


9/12

courses, and so forth. This could be totally justified by the urgency of the matter at hand

and the need to fulfill administrative demands for something big. This big thing

reflects the showcase attitude typical of policies in LDCs. Besides, one should consider

the socio-political factors that dominate the scene where the state plays a central role in

national development, and social and economic reproduction (Azab, 1998). In addition,

socio-cultural aspects, and the centrality of Islamic teachings to our lifestyles, all these

should help develop a slower, more cautious approach to learning without being skewed

to a specific mode at the expense of another.

Yes! It might be easy to hop onto the bandwagon of e-learning. However, realizing its

potential for transforming our educational systems and ultimately our society needs more

than just technology people and/ oreducators. It needs more than just doing. It needs

deeper understanding to our context, its dimensions, and the ultimate goal of learning.

We need to look at e-learning as a means to an end. E-learning is just a possible tool, at a

certain point of our history, that might work for some contexts and falter for others.One should be confident enough that any proposed model for a sustainable e-learning that

equates -for example- the newly marketed American model for democracy would end

up in disaster. What we really need is dialogue, more wholistic and incremental

approaches that respect human and institutional differences. There is no single pre-

defined set of dimensions for a sustainable e-learning approach. Available approaches

might display -at one point or another- only one side of the coin.

Even at certain point of time, a recommended mode of learning would change and this

change is certainly far from being linear. In contrast to the assembly metaphor of

modernity, where specific actions should lead to some predicted outcomes, post-

positivism utilizes the metaphor of morphogenesis, where our system is conceptualized as

a composition of diverse elements that interact by mutually causal and indeterminate

Change &

uncertainty

Societal sphere

Interpenetratio

Conscious,

Enthusiastic to share,Tolerant and humble,

Committed to an idola,

Visionary,

Contemplative

Multi-dimensional

Individual sphere

Social trans ormation

LearningMatrices

Personal growth

& Development


10/12

Fig (4): Learning, societal change and interpenetration.

processes. This system is open to external inputs, hence it can change

morphogenetically. A new form, unpredicted by any of its parts can arise in such an opensystem (Hwang, 1996 and Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Change takes place at both

individual and societal levels and brings the issue of interpenetration and the nature of

our reality. This refers to the interrelationship between change at the individual level and

how it could lead to societal change.

At personal level, an individual is motivated to maintain and enhance his or her self, to

conceive of it as efficacious and consequential, and to experience it as meaningful and

real. Social psychology has defined self-esteem, self-efficacy, and authenticity as the

motives for this process. Self-esteem refers to the motivation to view oneself favorably

and to act in such a way as to maintain, protect, or increase a favorable evaluation of the

self. Self-efficacy refers to the motivation to perceive oneself as a causal agent in the

environment that is to experience oneself in agentive terms. Finally, authenticity refers tothe individuals striving for meaning, coherence and understanding (Gecas, 1991).

Having maintained these in ones personal sphere, change spreads into higher scales and

spheres.

Fig (4) shows these two interrelated spheres: the first is personal or individual, while the

second is societal. Change at one scale feeds the other and vice versa. In addition, the

diagram illustrates characteristics that should be embodied in individuals ready for

inflicting that change. This comprises consciousness, enthusiasm for sharing and

participating, being visionary, contemplative, and committed to an idola (Azab, 1997).

The other complementing axiom of post-positivism is the holographic metaphor. In

contrast to the predominant mechanistic paradigm, that conceptualizes the world as awondrous machine, post-positivism looks at the world as a holographic image. This

image is created by a dynamic process of interaction and differentiation. Information is

distributed throughout and at each point information about the whole is contained in the

part. In the sense, everything is interconnected like a vast network of interference

patterns, having been generated by the same dynamic process and containing the whole in

the part (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The link between interpenetration and holographic

nature of the world is obvious and unavoidable for sustainability and ones self-growth.

I started my journey asking whether we could borrow Shakespeares famous quote with a

twist to better fit the context of this conference. I guess we could and should say To


11/12

learn or not to learn that is the question! Learning has everything to do with well-

being and existence.

It all starts from within, from our souls and belief systems. Some day, it might filter-upto the whole society and the globe Think about the possibilities. Here, one would start

with a simple, very basic course that reflects some usage for e-learning techniques.

Discard all fears of failure follow Hawthornes motto, try and error. This might

trigger change -and may be not- at personal and group levels. If this were to succeed,

interaction with other courses, institutions, would lead finally to a better mode of

learning sustained or not, this is susceptible to uncertainty and the binding context

just believe in that.

Going back to our opening scenes, these were not rolled in just for fun. Each incident

each detail conveys a message. Each reflects an attitude and a culture of doing specific

to our context. With such an attitude towards educators, with all the respectand trustthat

we place in them, whatever approaches we use, whether it is an e or an f learningapproach, consequences could be simply predicted fulfilling? I guess not.

***********

References:

Azab, Nader (1997). CoHousing: A Qualitative Study of Practices in the Pacific Northwest.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Portland State University. Portland OR: USA.

Azab, Nader (2000). A Tricky Mission: Economic Factors Within A General Theory of Urban

Form. In: Role of Engineering Towards Better Environment 2000. Proceedings of

the International Conference, by University of Alexandria, Faculty of Engineering.

Alexandria: Egypt.

Brundtland, Gro Harlem (1989). Global Change and Our Common Future. Environment, Vol.

31, No.5, pp. 16-19, 40-43.


12/12

Daly, Herman and John B. Cobb JR. (1994). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy

toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press.

Freire P. (1994). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum, London.

Friedmann, John (1992). Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge

MA and Oxford UK: BLACKWELL.

Govindasamy, Thavamalar (2002). Successful Implementation of E-Learning Pedagogical

Considerations. Internet and Higher Education. Vol. 4, April 2002, pp. 287299

Hayden, Dolores (1976). Seven American Utopias: The Architecture of Communitarian

Socialism, 1790-1975. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT

Press.

Hwang, Sang W. (1996). The Implications of the Nonlinear Paradigm for Integrated

Environmental Design and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 11, No. 2,

pp. 167-180.

Khan B.H. (2001). A framework for web-based learning. Educational Technology Publications,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Lele, Sharachchandra M. (1991). Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. World

Development, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 607-621.

Lincoln, Yvonna and Egon Guba (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, London, and New

Delhi: Sage Publications, International Educational and Professional Publisher.

Niebanck, Paul (1993). The Shape of Environmental Education. Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 511-518.

Redclift, Michael (1992). Sustainable Development and Global Environmental Change:

Implications of a Changing Agenda. In Global Environmental Change: Humanand Policy Dimensions. Vol.2 No.1, March 1992, pp.32-42.

Rogers, A. (2000). The failure and the promise of technology in education. Global

School Net Foundation, 27 May 2000. http://www.gsm.org/teacharticles/promise.html

s u s t a i n a b l e a p p r o a c h t o e l

Documents