Croatian Journal of Education Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016: pages: 31- 46 Original research paper Paper submitted: 2nd February 2016 Paper accepted: 26th April 2016 doi: 10.15516/cje.v18i0.2221 Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education Branko Bognar1, Vesna Gajger1 and Vlatka Ivić2 1 Faculty of Education, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek 2 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Abstract The use of e-learning has been recommended for all levels of the educational system, thus in higher education as well. However, e-learning is very often reduced to downloading teaching materials from teachers’ websites. Students rarely participate in forums discussing some teaching topics, and they even less frequently use a learning management system in their educational process (Dukić & Mađarić, 2012). Among learning management systems, the web application Moodle, which is based on the principles of constructivism and constructionism, is particularly popular. Constructivism assumes that learning is a social process where individuals learn through interacting with other people (Pritchard & Woollard, 2010), while constructionism additionally includes correlation of knowledge and social action (Burr, 2003). To encourage students to learn through interaction, we conducted an action research with the attempt to explore the possibilities of initiating discussions on the network forum of the Moodle system. The research was organised within the Pedagogy course in the first year of teacher studies over two academic years. The most important advantages of this way of learning proved to be freedom and flexibility of participation, the possibility of exchanging experiences and ideas, reflection and collaborative learning. Discussions on web forums have also shown certain deficiencies such as inadequate and unequal activity of all participants, lack of connection to the discussions of other participants (monologue form of writing), lack of criticism, lengthy texts, technical problems and the problem of availability of computers connected to the Internet. This research has shown that it is possible to organise constructivist e-learning in which higher education students will enjoy participating. Key words: action research; cooperative learning; learning management system; Moodle; web-based discussion forum. 31 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education Introduction Since computers have become an integral part of modern life, e-learning has become one of the key topics in pedagogical debates and research. Unfortunately, in practice it is often reduced to downloading teaching materials from teachers’ websites, though modern computers connected to the Internet with a variety of network applications, some completely free of charge, allow constructivist learning. Constructivist learning is founded on five basic principles: Learning is a process of interaction between what we know and what we still need to learn. Piaget (2005) believes that this happens as a process of assimilation when new knowledge is included in existing mental structures or as a process of accommodation when the mental structures are altered in order to avoid a mismatch between new information and the existing structures. Both processes support establishing of balance between the existing and new knowledge that is organized in schemes. The scheme can be imagined as a network of meaningfully interconnected pieces of information related to some topics (Pritchard & Wollard, 2010). The schemes represent the growing mental structures specific for each individual. While organising the learning process, it is important to take into account students’ previous knowledge, i.e., schemes that were previously created. Learning is a social process. In traditional teaching, learning is considered an individual process where students study the content presented in a variety of teaching resources, or listen to their teachers’ lectures. Contrary to this McDermott believes that: …learning is not in heads, but in the relations between people. Learning is in the conditions that bring people together and organize a point of contact that allows for particular pieces of information to take on relevance; without the points of contact, without the system of relevancies, there is no learning, and there is little memory. Learning does not belong to individual persons, but to the various conversations of which they are a part. (McDermott, 1999, p. 16) It is therefore important that teachers provide possibilities for cooperation and conversation about various educational topics for their students (Smith, 1999). Learning is a situational process. Lave and Wenger (1991) believe that situational learning is achieved through participation in certain social and cultural circumstances. Learning cannot be reduced to the process of acquiring knowledge, but it implies taking an active role in the permanent community of practice (Lave, 1999). Learning is a metacognitive process. Schunk (2012) points out that metacognition includes the understanding of skills and strategies that enable successful resolutions of the problems. On the other hand, it is important to know how to use these skills and strategies in order to learn effectively. Finally, learning is based on students’ activity and autonomy (Pritchard, 2009). E-learning is based on the use of electronic devices in a learning process. In the past, this meant the use of analogue devices, whereas today mostly digital devices are learned, among which particularly important are computers and mobile devices connected to the Internet. 32 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016, pages: 31-46 It should be noted that e-learning can be achieved through different theoretical approaches, including, among others, also constructivism. The modern systems for e-learning allow the achievement of all stated constructivist principles. Therefore, instead of focusing on creating, collecting, grouping and delivering information (Miller, 2000) which was a feature of Web 1.0 systems, Web 2.0 applications allow users to create content independently through mutual communication (Mason & Rennie, 2008). One such system is Moodle (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment). Although this system can also be used for the delivery of educational content, it is designed primarily to facilitate learning based on constructivist and constructionist principles. Constructionist philosophy assumes that people learn best when they, through interaction, create educational content for others (Rice, 2011). For the realization of the interaction in the Moodle system, it is possible to use a variety of activities such as forums, chats, dictionaries, Wiki and workshops. For constructivists, e-learning network forums that enable asynchronous communication on the topics of participants’ common interest are particularly important. The forums in Moodle are mostly initiated by teachers, and students can set a new topic of discussion or get involved in some already started by responding to some of the previously sent messages. Mason and Rennie (2008) point out that the benefits of the forums in e-learning are their flexibility and availability from anywhere and at any time, they support the participation of more introvert students, all remains recorded, asynchronous participation provides more time for reflecting on responses which also helps reflective students to participate, the teacher is more a moderator than a lecturer, forums are easy to install and administer, and everything that students write is permanently recorded, making evaluation easier. Forums are particularly suitable for the realization of discussion. Discussions in contrast to the usual conversations involve serious, thoughtful and focused communication. Brookfield and Preskill (1999) point out four objectives that can be achieved by participating in discussions: ...(1) to help participants reach a more critically informed understanding about the topic or topics under consideration, (2) to enhance participants’ selfawareness and their capacity for self-critique, (3) to foster an appreciation among participants for the diversity of opinion that invariably emerges when viewpoints are exchanged openly and honestly, and (4) to act as a catalyst to helping people take informed action in the world. (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999, p. 5). Methodology As our aim was to introduce changes into teaching practice, we chose action research. Action research is not focused on “objective” diagnosis of a current situation (Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2014), but it allows for a self-reflexive examination of the professional conditions and professional activity with the purpose to achieve substantial changes. 33 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education The changes we have tried to achieve are based on autonomously selected values of practitioners. In this study, our intention was to encourage students’ cooperation, activity and autonomy in the realization of e-learning. Through conversation with students, as well as through their responses in the questionnaire, we noticed that none of the students had any previous experience in e-learning based on constructivism. That means that no one has taken part in discussions on web forums as a part of the teaching process. This problem is confirmed by the results of the survey conducted by Dukić and Mađarić (2012) on the sample of 388 students of Josip Juraj Strossmayer University in Osijek, which showed that 93.6% of the students said that they used the Internet as an additional source for teaching content. On the other hand, only 41% of the students participated in forums dedicated to teaching issues. Therefore, we decided to explore the possibilities of achieving constructivist e-learning in higher education in pedagogy at the Faculty of Education. Table 1 Action research plan Objectives Activities Criteria Realization of constructivist e-learning Agreement on the choice of topics, ways to participate in the discussion and evaluation criteria Discussion on the network forum Implementation of the evaluation questionnaire in the Moodle Implementation of the interviews with two groups of students Discussion started from the prior knowledge and previous experience of students Learning is achieved through interaction within small teams Topics of discussions were connected with the socio-cultural context that is familiar and relevant to students in their professional learning Students developed an awareness of various metacognitive strategies, and took control over them during the learning process Students participated independently and actively in the discussion Students’ satisfaction with discussion Students’ expectations of discussion via network forums are mainly realized Students are satisfied with the possibility to participate in the discussion forum and with their activities In the process of change, we started from two research objectives: the realization of e-learning in higher education based on the principles of constructivism, and students’ satisfaction with their participation in discussion via network forums (Table 1). To achieve the set goals, we organized a discussion forum using the system for e-learning Moodle. The discussion was attended by students in the first year of the Pedagogy course at the Faculty of Education, Osijek, Branching study in Slavonski Brod during two academic years: 43 students in the academic year 2013/2014 and 31 student in the year 2014/2015, the course leader was Branko Bognar and the assistant Vesna Gajger. Students in the fifth year of the same study programme (the academic year 2014/2015), and Vlatka Ivić, senior language instructor from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Osijek were involved as critical friends in the research. 34 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016, pages: 31-46 It was agreed with the students that the discussion would last for three weeks in January. For monitoring the implementation of the process of change, we used a standardized open interview conducted with two groups of students who participated in the discussions. In the first group there were four students who participated in the interview in the academic year 2013/2014, and there were five students who participated in the interview in the following academic year. In addition, students were asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire in Moodle. The questionnaire was completed by 66 students out of 74 (89.2%) who participated in the discussions. The discussions recorded in Moodle represented an important source of data. Results Process of Discussion At the beginning of the course, we introduced our students to the possibility of participating in the discussions on the network forum. Firstly, students were divided into teams of five to seven members. Team members chose their own team names at the beginning of classes (e.g. Cranberries, Sapphires, Good-hearted teachers, etc.). We envisaged students participating in the discussion within their previously created teams. During the lessons in late December, we agreed, with the students, on the ways of accomplishing the discussions. Each team could choose one of the following topics: e.g. discussion on films with educational issues, on books (Miller, 1995; Neill, 1999) and on general topics such as the implementation of health education or education for creativity). In addition, students could have offered their own topics related to the course curriculum. The teams generally chose to discuss the films (six teams, 50%), the book “The Drama of Being a Child” (4 teams, 33.33%), and one team selected health education and one education for creativity. Before starting the discussion, there was a forum discussion opened for each team in Moodle. After opening the appropriate forum, students could read the introductory message and download the attached documents (instructions for APA standards use, a list of suggested literature, criteria for assessment of the discussion, and instructions on team roles) set by their professor. The critical friend stated that the preparatory activities were successful: Teachers have done a lot to prepare students for successful participation in the e-discussion in their Pedagogy course. In addition to the introductory meetings and agreement during the lessons, all students were given very detailed instructions on what is expected of them and what the discussion in the forum should look like (Personal communication, February 2015). The discussion was initiated by the teacher asking students to introduce themselves and state their impressions and experiences in relation to the film, book or introductory text. After the presentation and disclosure of their personal experiences, which lasted a week, the teacher gave an accompanying task depending on the topic of their 35 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education discussion. The teams discussing the films were given the task to express their opinion on the proposal of the Teachers’ association “Teachers organized” which advocates the introduction of suspensions for students. The students were asked to compare this initiative with the educational approach of Neill (1999) in his Summerhill School. Students were invited to propose some educational activities related to the problems they saw in the film. In shaping the ideas for educational activities, they were supposed to use the suggested literature or other sources they could find themselves. In the next task, they had to make a plan for an action research with the aim of improving educational activities in an a primary school. After three to four weeks of participation in the discussion (in the first year the discussion lasted for three weeks, while in the second year due to students’ other obligations the discussion was extended for another week) students were asked to write a conclusion regarding the topic discussed, and the short review on the debate they participated in. In addition, they had to specify a list of cited literature. Finally, we asked them to fill in an anonymous evaluation questionnaire that was available through Moodle. Analysis of the Achievement of Set Objectives When analysing the data, we took care of the set objectives and the related criteria (Table 1). In order to achieve the first objective – achieving the constructivist e-learning it is important to consider if the principles are fulfilled according to the statement that learning is a process of interaction between what we know and what we still need to learn. This is especially apparent during the first activity when students presented their impressions on a selected topic and connected them with their personal experience. Through content analysis of their writings in the forum, we noticed that students were familiar with the discussion topics, and they easily linked them with their personal experiences. We also observed that the topics encouraged them to question and critically analyse their experiences from childhood, family, school relations, education of their children, or living in a particular community. Thus, a student participating in the discussion on the book “The Drama of Being a Child” wrote: I realized that I unconsciously “copy” educational patterns of my parents and project them to the education of my children ... I could not stop thinking about it [the book] and I began to realise that each action of mine is somehow mirroring my childhood, all my understanding and thinking is a reflection of what happened to me in my childhood (Student M. G., personal communication, January 9, 2015). Although the activity of having the discussion on the Internet is primarily focused on the process of learning through participants’ interaction, content analysis shows that the monologue approach is still prevalent in discussions. The communication with the other team members did occur as the students often stated: “I agree with my colleague 36 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016, pages: 31-46 when he/she writes ...” This problem was noticed among fifth year students as well when we asked them to engage in a critical analysis of the discussions, but observed also by some of the participants: I expected more discussions in the real sense of the word. Our discussion was reduced to long monologues. But, this is not the fault of our professors but us and our poor experience in this type of task. I believe that next time we will do much better, because now we have more experience (Student 44, personal communication, February 2, 2015). Using one of the criteria for assessing the quality of students’ discussions related to communication with all members of the team, we noticed that students in the first year (n=43) communicated significantly longer with each other (76.74%) than students in the next year (n=31, 51.61%). Despite the lack of real discussion, students were reading what other members of their team had written which is obvious from the content of their discussions: “I was not exactly thrilled with the idea (discussing), but it turned out just the opposite. I’ve learned a lot of things by reading the reviews of other colleagues and it was an interesting and nice experience” (Student 10, personal communication, January 31, 2014). The third criterion, the relation of the discussion topic with the socio-cultural context that is familiar and relevant to students for their professional learning, especially came into practice while participating in the second and third activity. The students had the task to comment on specific educational problems and current debates in the scientific community in search for their resolution. This is among other things related to the initiative of the Teachers’ association “Teachers organized” which advocates the introduction of suspension for students. Some students initially accepted this initiative, however, eventually nearly all agreed that punishment, and thus, the introduction of suspension is not the right educational solution. Instead, they accepted Neill’s educational approach in his Summerhill School: I agree that a child should be given time to realize that they did something wrong, but I think that punishment won’t help much. We should show love to a child, and that their opinion is accepted. “Hate and punishment never cured anything, only love can cure” (Neill, 1999) (Student K. J., personal communication, January 17, 2015). By reading suggested literature, discussing current educational problems and trying to find solutions to them, students had the opportunity to develop an awareness of the various metacognitive strategies, and they took control over them during the learning process. This is particularly evident in the final review on the participation in the discussion where students wrote about what and how they learnt: In the end, I want to say that I have learnt a lot from this discussion. I adopted some new methods that I will, hopefully, apply in my future work. In addition, I had fun and laughed. In conclusion, I can say that through this discussion I have realized that being a teacher is really one of the best professions in the 37 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education world and that we just need to love it and live for it. We need to be teachers willing to compromise, be creative, always be there for the children. If we show love for children, they will surely return it through their joy and laughter, and there is no better and more beautiful gift than that. For sure (Student V. M., personal communication, January 31, 2014). In order to encourage the development and acquisition of various metacognitive learning strategies during the discussion in the academic year 2014/2015, we introduced roles for the team members. In fact, each member of the team had the opportunity to choose one of the following roles: leader, researcher, innovator, sunny person, critic, controller and entertainer (http://goo.gl/Z5VH9K). After analysing the use of roles during discussions, we noticed that the roles did not additionally burden the students. However, by assessing criteria for the evaluation of the quality of the discussion related to the use of the selected roles in the team, we found out that less than half of the participants (45%) fulfilled it. The achievement of the criterion for independent and active participation in the discussion was the least questionable because of the very structure of the activity. Thus, the design of the activity required active participation of students in all stages of the discussion as some students pointed out in their final comments: Professor, this is a different way of learning and I think that is great. In this way, we were given freedom in the selection of literature and in conducting this discussion and were allowed to decide personally what to read, and yet by giving us some guidance you taught us something new (Student J. J., personal communication, January 31, 2014). Student’s activity is confirmed by the assessment of one of the criteria for the evaluation of the discussion related to their continuous activity. We estimated that 92.57% of the students fulfilled this criterion. 0 4 2 6 Getting to know each other, communication, opinion exchange Learning, development of skills, creating attitudes 10 12 11 8 Cooperation, mutual help and getting closer 4 Negative expectations (e.g. something abstract and hard) Creative, exciting, dynamic and interesting discussion 4 3 New experience 3 Participants’ activity 2 Relaxing discussion 2 Discussion on selected topics and topics related to the course 2 Figure 1. Students’ expectations from the discussion 38 8 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016, pages: 31-46 Our objective was to achieve satisfaction of students in participating in forum discussions. When asked “What did you expect from the discussion via a network forum?” 30 students answered the evaluation questionnaire. Some students indicated more than one expectation, so their total number is greater than the number of students who responded to this question. Graph 1 shows the most common expectations. It is possible to observe that students’ expectations of discussion were mostly fulfilled. It is interesting to note that students who participated in the discussion in the first year (n=42) were more satisfied with the fulfilment of their expectations (M=4.43) than students in the succeeding year (n=24) whose average was 4.17. The answer to the question in the questionnaire “To what extent are you satisfied with your participation in the discussion via Internet?” confirms the presented results (Figure 3). However, in this case the difference in average satisfaction with participation in discussion in the first year (M1=4.40) and the next year (M2=4.33) was lower. 35 35 32 31 30 30 27 26 25 25 20 20 15 15 9 10 10 0 7 5 5 0 0 1 2 0 3 4 5 Figure 2. Fulfillment of students‘ expectations of participating in the discussion via the Internet 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 3. Students‘ satisfaction with participation in the discussion via the Internet In the evaluation questionnaire students were asked to indicate the advantages and disadvantages they observed during the participation in the discussion via the Internet. The advantages were indicated by 38 respondents out of 66 (57.58%), whereas the disadvantages were mentioned by 22 respondents (33.33%). In their responses, students could indicate more than one perceived advantage and disadvantage. Among the advantages, special importance is given to freedom of expression of thoughts and feelings, participation at any time, and friendly and relaxed atmosphere. Figure 4 shows only those advantages stated by three or more students. Regarding disadvantages, the most significant are late and unequal involvement of some students, insufficient communication and cooperation and technical problems (some students in rented apartments mentioned the problem of using the Internet). For the same question asked in the interview, students also stated that they lacked a real discussion in terms of the confrontation of opinions and views. The following suggestions for improving the discussion via the Internet were obtained from the questionnaire: change the time for this activity, reduce the number of words in discussions according to the criteria (boost shorter comments for the 39 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Freedom of expressing thoughts and feelings 11 Possibility of participating at any time suitable 11 Friendly and relaxing atmosphere 10 Getting to know each other 7 Participation from home 6 More time to think and write the responses 5 Exchange of experiences and ideas 4 Getting closer and cooperation 3 New insights 3 Figure 4. Advantages students noticed during participation in the discussion via the Internet discussion to become more interesting and dynamic) and give more stimulating tasks that will induce confrontation of opinions. In addition, in the interview one student suggested that the professor takes part in the discussion more often to support the real discussion with his/her comments. Based on the established criteria, students are assessed (Figure 5). The professor and his assistant participated in the evaluation of students. In the first year, students achieved an average score of 4.40, whereas in the succeeding year, the average score was slightly lower, at 4.23. 40 35 35 32 30 25 20 15 10 5 1 0 Unrated 1 0 3 4 2 3 4 5 Figure 5. Results of evaluating discussions on the Internet The questionnaire aimed at students who participated in the discussions in 2015, asked whether they think the discussion via the Internet should be used in their higher 40 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016, pages: 31-46 education studies. Almost all (23 out of 24 students) expressed agreement (16 in full and 7 partially) while only one student disagreed circling number 2 on the scale of 1 to 5 (1 – I fully disagree, 5 – I fully agree). Discussion In the discussions on the Moodle web forum, the tasks initiated by the teacher played an important role. Herrington (2006) thinks that for e-learning based on constructivism it is important to create authentic tasks. We believe that real life examples presented through different media (books, films, videos, texts on the Internet) contributed to the authenticity of our tasks. These examples directed students to engage in relevant, but also in partially defined problems that they could independently define. The problems were complex enough so that they caught their attention for a longer time. The set tasks required research on problems using different perspectives and sources, and offered students the opportunity for collaboration and critical thinking, and they also integrated different areas of expertise (e.g. pedagogy, psychology, sociology, philosophy, politics). The assignments enabled creating various solutions that were valuable for themselves. Based on the data analysis it is possible to conclude that the discussions via the Internet enabled constructivist e-learning. From the set criteria, the only one slightly less satisfying was the requirement that learning is achieved through interaction within small teams. This problem was more obvious in the academic year 2014/2015. We can notice that students in the first-year communicated more with each other (76.74%) than it was the case in the subsequent year (51.61%). This probably reflects in their greater satisfaction with the fulfilment of their expectations as well as the satisfaction of participating in the discussion. As the discussions in both years were realized in a similar way, we think that the reason for this problem can be found in the group of enrolled students. In constructivist learning, the responsibility for their results should be taken by students themselves since they, through the interaction with other participants in the educational process, deepen the understanding of what they learn and come up together with possible solutions to the identified or set problems. The other reason might be the obligations with revision tests and preparations for exams in other courses, which partially hampered the activity of students in discussions. Therefore, in the following year we decided to organise the discussion earlier in the second semester, which was one of the participant’s suggestions in the interviews. Nevertheless, the problem of relatively superficial interpersonal communication remains. We think that the ground for it lies in the lack of experience that students had with this form of discussion. Although students, participants in the discussions, belong to the generation of “digital natives”, who have grown up with computers, video games, the Internet and social networks, they are mainly raised by the generation of “digital immigrants” “who speak an out-dated language (that of the pre-digital age), 41 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language“ (Prensky, 2001, p. 2). On the one hand, this has made contemporary generations far more skilled in the use of digital devices compared with their parents and teachers, but they often use them in a superficial manner. The reason is very simple: there is nobody to teach them how to use these technologically advanced and easily accessible media for serious discussions on social issues, as well as for essential learning and creativity. It is very difficult for young people to learn that without the involvement of the older generations who are, unfortunately, often reluctant to use digital media. Even if they use them (e.g. taking part in social networks such as Facebook or Twitter), they often adopt an infantile mode of communication of younger generations. In order for students to learn how to seriously participate in the discussions, it is necessary that discussions become an integral part of the teaching process, not only in the framework of one course, but on different occasions throughout different courses. We believe that this can be achieved because students were mostly satisfied with their participation in the discussions, and they also believe that discussions should be used in higher education. Teaching students how to participate in discussions is particularly important in democratic societies. From the data presented (Figure 4) it is possible to observe that students point out that one of the most important advantages of a discussion is freedom of expression of thoughts and feelings which is a fundamental precondition for the development of democratic relations. “In this minidemocracy, all have the right to express themselves as well as the responsibility to create spaces that encourage even the most reluctant speaker to participate“ (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999, p. 3). Constructivist learning is just one of the theoretical approaches to establishing e-learning. In addition to constructivism, e-learning can be based on behaviourism and cognitivism (Holmes & Gardner, 2006) and connectivism (Anderson & Dron, 2012). We believe that in education, special attention should be given to creativity, and to learning through the implementation of socially relevant changes. In this case, the discussions ended with the assignment in which students should devise a plan of action aimed at solving educational problems that have been encountered in the discussion. However, they were not expected to implement their plans. We believe that already in the following year we could link the discussion with the activities, or projects, so that students can plan and achieve substantial changes after or during their participation in the discussions. Through an active contribution to the realization of the planned changes students will modify their understanding of problems they are dealing with, but they will also develop their professional competences, as well as themselves. Finally, it is important to note that the discussions resulted in final grades that deviate from the standard Gaussian curve, which is considered the ideal way of evaluation by many. However, we fail to observe the fact that in this case, most of the 42 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016, pages: 31-46 students achieve average results, and a certain percentage of students is even doomed to failure. In contrast to this, Glasser believes that, in schools and in other areas of life, we should strive for excellence: “Quality product is not an average or minimum product. Would you like to be operated on by an average surgeon or to eat an average lunch in a restaurant? Nobody wants anything average so why would we be content with average quality in schools?” (Glasser, 2005, p. 97). We believe that the results achieved by students participating in the discussion (Figure 5) are close to Glasser’s ideal of excellence, although we are not yet fully satisfied with the achieved. Conclusion The discussion has proved to be a suitable method for the realization of constructivist e-learning. This way of learning recognised students’ previous knowledge and experience that they upgraded or changed through interaction with their peers and teachers. The discussions were based on the activities of the students themselves who, by solving specific professional problems autonomously and taking care of their cognitive strategies, exercised essential learning. This learning “has a quality of personal involvement… It is self-initiated… It is pervasive. It makes a difference in the behaviour, the attitudes, perhaps even the personality of the learner. It is evaluated by the learner… Its essence is meaning” (Rogers, 1969, p. 5). Our research has shown that students, despite their ease at using the e-learning system, may have difficulties in serious discussions with their peers. It is possible to change that only if they are given more opportunities to participate in similar activities during their university education. An encouraging fact is that students are ready for such an approach: At first, I did not know what to expect from this course, but I was completely surprised when the professor introduced the discussion. I really liked the discussion because we were free to express our opinion and views on certain topics.... Such discussions gave me a good foundation for my future profession as a teacher, and somehow, developed my creativity. I’ve learned a lot and I am very proud that this approach to children will remain in my mind forever because it wasn’t “crammed” (Student M. B., personal communication, February 3, 2015). 43 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education References Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2012). Learning technology through three generations of technology enhanced distance education pedagogy. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2), 1-14. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for university teachers. Buckingham: Open University Press. Dukić, D., & Mađarić, S. (2012). Online učenje u hrvatskom visokom obrazovanju [Online learning in Croatian tertiary education]. Tehnički glasnik, 6(1), 69-72. Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. London: Routledge. Glasser, W. (2005). Kvalitetna škola: Škola bez prisile [The quality school: Managing students without coercion]. Zagreb: Educa. Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. In T. Reeves, & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 3164-3173). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/9781-59140-594-8 Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. London: SAGE. Lave, J. (1999). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: APA. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Mason, R., & Rennie F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge. McDermott, R. P. (1999). On Becoming Labelled - the Story of Adam. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment (pp. 1-21). London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Miller, A. (1995). The Drama of Being a Child. Zagreb: Educa. Miller, T. W. (2000). Marketing research and the information industry. CASRO Journal 2000, 21-26. Neill, A. S. (1999). Škola Summerhill: Novi pogled na djetinjstvo [Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood]. Zagreb: Sara 93. Piaget, J. (2005). The Psychology of Intelligence (Trans. M. Piercy & D. E. Berlyne). London: Routledge. Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of Learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. London: Routledge. Rice, W. (2011). Moodle 2.0 e-learning course development: A complete guide to successful learning using Moodle. Birmingham: Packt Publishing. Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson. Smith, M. K. (1999). The social/situational orientation to learning. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved on February 20, 2015 from www.infed.org/biblio/learningsocial.htm 44 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.18; Sp.Ed.No.1/2016, pages: 31-46 Branko Bognar Department for Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Cara Hadrijana 10, 31000 Osijek, Hrvatska branko.bognar@gmail.com Vesna Gajger Department for Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Cara Hadrijana 10, 31000 Osijek, Hrvatska vesnagajger@yahoo.co.uk Vlatka Ivić Department of English, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Lorenza Jägera 9, 31000 Osijek, Hrvatska vlatka.ivic@gmail.com 45 Bognar, Gajger and Ivić: Constructivist E-learning in Higher Education Konstruktivističko e-učenje u visokoškolskoj nastavi Sažetak Premda se već duže vrijeme preporučuje korištenje e-učenja na svim razinama obrazovnog sustava, a time i u visokoškolskom obrazovanju, ono se vrlo često svodi na preuzimanje nastavnih materijala s mrežnih stranica nastavnika. Studenti znatno rjeđe sudjeluju na forumima posvećenim nastavnoj problematici, a još se rjeđe koriste sustavima za upravljanje učenjem u procesu obrazovanja (Dukić i Mađarić, 2012). Među sustavima za upravljanje učenjem posebno je popularna mrežna aplikacija Moodle koja je utemeljena na principima konstruktivizma i konstrukcionizma. Pri tome konstruktivizam polazi od pretpostavke da je učenje socijalni proces u kojemu ljudi uče u interakciji s drugim ljudima (Pritchard i Woollard, 2010), a konstrukcionizam tome dodaje povezanost znanja i socijalne akcije (Burr, 2003). Kako bi potakli studente na učenje putem međusobne interakcije proveli smo akcijsko istraživanje u kojemu smo nastojali istražiti mogućnosti ostvarivanja rasprava na mrežnom forumu sustava Moodle. Istraživanje je provedeno u okviru kolegija Pedagogija na prvoj godini Učiteljskog studija tijekom dvije akademske godine. Kao najvažnije prednosti takvog načina učenja uočili smo slobodu i fleksibilnost sudjelovanja, mogućnost razmjene iskustava i ideja, refleksivnost i suradničko učenje. Rasprave na web-forumu pokazale su određene nedostatke koje su se najčešće odnosile na nedovoljnu i nejednaku aktivnost svih sudionika, nepovezanost s raspravama drugih sudionika, nedovoljnu kritičnost, preduge tekstove i javljanje tehničkih problema. Ovo istraživanje je pokazalo mogućnosti organizacije konstruktivističkog e-učenje u visokoškolskoj nastavi u kojem studenti rado sudjeluju. Ključne riječi: akcijsko istraživanje; Moodle; mrežni forum za raspravu; suradničko učenje; sustav za upravljanje učenjem. 46