Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:2688] Pre-discussion paper
From: Kinshuk (Kinshuk@massey.ac.nz)
Date: Tue 15 Jan 2002 - 06:31:16 MET
From: "Kinshuk" <Kinshuk@massey.ac.nz> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:2688] Pre-discussion paper Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:31:16 +1300
Dear colleagues
Please find below the pre-discussion paper on the theme 'Beyond Classroom
Solutions: New Design Perspectives for Online Learning Excellence' by
Maggie Martinez, CEO, The Training Place, USA, our moderator and summariser
for the discussion. The discussion will formally end on 1 February 2002.
The HTML version of the paper is available at:
http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss_january2002.html
Please send your comments on the paper to IFETS list at
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beyond Classroom Solutions: New Design Perspectives for Online Learning Excellence"
* Introduction
This discussion is aimed at professionals who want to explore new perspectives on
designing Web learning instruction and environments. It is intended for
participants who recognize that conventional classroom design methodologies may
not always work for online learning, especially when an instructor is not available
to facilitate more independent learning. What changes do we need to make when we
shift the responsibility for learning from the classroom instructor to the online
learner? What are our new considerations and what changes do we need to make when
we expect learners to become more-self motivated and self-directed online learners?
Like many others, I have many questions. What are others doing to consider the
changes and demands for online learning? In fact, I would like to see our industry
take a formal approach in considering the impact (good and bad) that technology has
had on how we design, integrate and present instruction and environments and develop
social relationships. I would like to see a framework based on concrete research
that distinguishes key differences that can guide our online design strategies-with
successful results. An exaggerated hope perhaps but let's start talking about what
needs to be done!
* Not Surprisingly Several Questions Arise
- Which design strategies help learners become more self-motivated and independent
learners?
- What are designers curriculum developers doing differently when they design for
online learning and what do they say about what works?
- What are designers doing differently to accommodate social relationships that
support effective learning for individuals.
- What are the similarities and contrasts between online learning and classroom
environments?
- What are the design issues and strategies for individuals using synchronous and
asynchronous tools?
- How much do you need to know about the content delivery tools to deliver the content
to individuals effectively?
These are just a few of the question running through my head. What are the other
questions that need to be asked? Some of the answers to these complex questions rely
on how well we understand key learning differences and their influence on successful
learning. One missing link is the instructional perspective that embraces a truly
learner-centric understanding of how individuals want or intend to learn (more than
just the cognitive understanding of how learner's process and build knowledge).
Conventional solutions that focus on primarily cognitive factors may be incomplete or
no longer capable of fulfilling the needs of today's online learner.
Historically, cognitive-rich (how people think) explanations about learning differences
have tended to underplay or overlook the dominant impact of affective (how people feel)
and conative (how people realize intentions) factors on thinking, learning, and
performance. Previously, primarily cognitive-based solutions were enough because
instructors were in the classroom to implement, adapt, and personalize the solutions to
their audience and specific objectives. After years of depending on the instructor in
the classroom, learners are experiencing a change. Clearly online, the responsibility
to learn shifts considerably to the learner.
Recently, these dimensions have gained considerable importance as contemporary
multidisciplinary research (including recent advances in neurobiology of learning
and memory) has revealed how intentions and emotions can influence, guide, and, at
times, override our thinking (cognitive) processes. Since instructors, who previously
addressed the conative, affective, and social factors in the classroom are not always
available, the primarily cognitive-based solutions and perspectives used previously
may be incomplete and need to be refined as more and more learners move to learning on
the Web.
* Key Issues for Individual Learning Differences
My personal search is to explore individual learning differences, particularly in
understanding the impact of emotions and intentions on learning and how we develop,
use or manage our values, cognitive abilities and social relationships. As we put
learners online and expect learners to take on more responsibility for their learning,
we begin to see learners as individuals and identify how each may use or need additional
support to improve their online learning achievement and ability over time. In this
understanding, we also begin to see patterns (from a "whole-person" perspective) that
identify gaps in how people are equipped to engage in learning online.
This discussion should explore design guidelines for at least three key areas for more
personalized online learning:
- presentation of instruction
- learning environments
- social relationships
Within each of these areas, how do we consider how individuals learn differently from a
whole-person perspective (not cognitive-based learning styles)?
The first area of consideration emerges from the understanding that learning environments
strongly influence how we learn and especially online without an instructor. Most
research studies suggest that a closely matched learning or personalized environment
will have a positive impact on learning. As a result, this discussion may also consider
how to build learning environments that adapt to key individual learning differences.
Or is it even necessary? Certainly we've tried adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring
in the past. Is the typical, cognitive-based "one-size-fits" all the most sensible?
In the past, have we considered how individuals want and intend to learn and is this
consideration of individual differences a waste of resources? From another perspective,
should we educate our audiences to demand a more sophisticated understanding of how
individuals learn? Or, when we design a course with only a universal type or
"one-size-fits-all" learner in mind do we unintentionally set other learners up for
frustration and possible failure?
The second area of consideration is how to design and present instruction that recognizes,
matches, and supports how individuals want and intend to learn differently. In this area,
the primary design goals should provide instruction that helps learners accomplish
instructional objectives and, more importantly, also helps them continually improve
online learning ability (e.g., more self-motivated and self-directed learning than when
they were in instructor-led environments).
The third area of consideration is how to develop social relationships in support of
the instructional objectives (instructional objectives and achievement) but also improved
online learning ability and individual needs.
We are still very much in the experimental stage for creating Web learning environments.
Much still needs to be learned about designing successful environments, both technically
and pedagogically. Since the fifties, researchers have challenged the field to find for
each individual the instructional solutions that the learner can most easily adapt for
the best payoff. Hopefully our readers will examine their own position on (a) considering
the influence of key psychological factors (conative, affective, cognitive, and social)
that influence learning differently, (b) recognizing critical links between Web
instruction, learning environments, learning differences, social relationships, and
online learning ability, and (c) developing supportive Web instruction and learning
environments (different from classroom solutions) that match values, beliefs, and
individual learning differences.
* Conclusions
The Web offers the perfect technology and environment for precision learning because
learners can be uniquely identified, content can be personalized, and subsequent
progress can be monitored, supported, and assessed-cost effectively. Technologically,
researchers are making rapid progress realizing the personalized learning dream. The
missing link is the instructional perspective that embraces a truly personal,
whole-person understanding of how individuals want or intend to learn (more than just
processing and building knowledge). Conventional solutions that focus on primarily
cognitive factors may be incomplete or no longer capable of fulfilling the needs of
the more sophisticated Information Age online learner.
Hopefully, these suggestions will contribute to the development of a more successful
learning framework for the Web and a greater understanding about matching solutions
with key, fundamental learning differences. When we design a course with only a
universal type or "one-size-fits-all" learner in mind are we unintentionally setting
other learners up for frustration and possible failure? If we are serious about
providing good online instruction for learners, should we move away from traditional
classroom solutions and when necessary learn to design multiple ways to conduct
instruction in environments that all learners have opportunities to succeed? This
discussion is a first step in thinking about recognizing and accommodating individual
learning differences. They are also an important step in recognizing the expanded,
dominant role and impact of emotions and intentions on learning, especially since
online learners must be by nature of the delivery system more self-motivated and
self-directed learners.
* References
Jones, E. R. and Martinez, M. (2001) Learning Orientations in University Web-Based
Courses. Proceedings of WebNet 2001, Oct 23-27, Orlando, Florida,
http://normal.tamucc.edu/jones/webnet01.pdf.
Martinez, M. (2001). Key Design Considerations for Personalized Learning on the Web.
Educational Technology & Society,
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2001/martinez.html
Martinez, M. (2001). Using Learning Orientations to Design Instruction with Learning
Objects. In Wiley, D. (ed.), Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Association for
Educational Communications & Technology,
http://reusability.org/read/#3
Martinez, M. and Bunderson, C. V. (2001). Foundations for Personalized Web Learning
Environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2),
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/Vol4_issue2/burdenson.htm.
Martinez, M. and Bunderson, C. (2000). Building Interactive Web Learning Environments
to Match and Support Individual Learning Differences. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 11(2). Abstract,
http://www.aace.org/pubs/jilr/v11n2.htm#Building Interactive World Wide
Russell, T. (1997). Technology wars: Winners and losers. Educom Review, 32 (2), 44-46.
Snow, R., & Farr, M. (1987). Cognitive-conative-affective processes in aptitude,
learning, and instruction: An introduction. In R. Snow & M. Farr (Eds.) Conative and
affective process analysis, 36, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1-10.
----------
End
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 15 Jan 2002 - 07:22:32 MET