Learner Support: Two Important Dimensions

Of the 10 dimensions that McLoughlin (2002) identifies as important for the scaffolding of learners, two seem very relevant to a course of mine; constructivism and learning orientation.

Constructivism scaffolding encourages the learners to make new meaning as opposed to conducting memorisation or rote learning.
Learning orientation scaffolding reduces the active contribution of the teacher as the learner gains more knowledge, skills and confidence.

In my situation, the learners have tended to remain in a passive role, accepting input from tutors, and offering critique or comments. The scaffolding to encourage them to create knowledge of their own and articulate it has been missing.

To encourage greater learning orientation, I envisage an individual task in which the learner must find their own case study examples that illustrate the theory they have been taught. An example can be provided, to model the way the case studies can be analysed and recommendations can be made about how and where to search for examples. If we were then to add the use of a shared workspace where the results of this research are logged, a further scaffold (collaboration) will be available.

Constructivism can be scaffolded by means of an activity that invites students to create a short presentation; this will articulate their learning to an audience of their choosing. A template which provides an outline structure for this presentation can be offered for those that a looking for greater guidance.

Yet again, I am finding that the subject of e-learning innovation is like the peeling of an onion. You think you've got the hang of a topic, and then another level is opened up into view. What strikes me about my previous efforts at e-learning is that I have overlooked the diversity of support needs and existing levels of knowledge of my students. I have assumed levels of knowledge, rather than looking for evidence of what that knowledge is and having a sense of what the next zone of development should be. Although the zones are likely to be different for each student, the more that the responsibility for that learning can be handed over to the student, the less crtical it is for the tutor to shoulder that burden.



Reference:
McLoughlin, C. (2002) ‘Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: ten dimensions for successful design’, Distance Education, vol.23, no.2, pp.149–62.

Looking Forwards with e-Learning Theory and Pedagogy

Having reviewed the Mayes and de Freitas (2004) study, they provide some very helpful pointers to incorporating e learning theories and pedagogies into my online teaching approach. 


As I said in my previous post, my current face-to-face practice begins with an associationist approach to defining outcomes and breaking a topic down into manageable chunks. But once I get into teaching and learning activities, my approach becomes more cognitive, with learners being encouraged to make their own meaning with scaffolding from tools and activities. Whether my learners could ever be called a community of practice, as in the sociative genre, is less arguable, as they are often from different disciplines, levels of experience, intellect etc. However, by the end of a programme, I do think my activities become more socially constructivist in style, with groups being asked to work together to make sense and communicate main messages from an event.


In moving into e-learning, my early efforts have fallen into the category that Mayes and de Freitas (2004) describe as "pragmatic rather than pedagogic" (p4), consisting of groups of participants for whom getting together to learn is completely impractical. In adopting more of an associationist approach to delivering content, we have failed to exploit many of the affordances of the new technology.


Mayes and de Freitas outline the following overall approach to e-learning design

• carefully defined intended learning outcomes,
• learning and teaching activities that enable the students to achieve that learning, 
• assessment tasks which will genuinely test whether the outcomes have been reached

I'm sure I can do a better job of breaking down the various learning outcomes needed, and that incorporating more constructivist activities into the programme will help my learners to build better frameworks for their own learning.


However, the big gap I can now see in my approach is that I have left assessment too late in the process. In the current programme, assessment only occurs at the end of a five module programme, by which time gaps in understanding may have been missed. An important affordance of technology is that formative assessment becomes much easier and offers the chance to make learning much more personalised. This takes me back to one of my eye opening moments on H807 - web 2.0 assessment (Elliott, 2008).  I can now see that formative assessment is a vital element in being able to offer learners scaffolding for their development.


Not quite back to the drawing board, but a lot of food for thought;-)




Ref:

Elliott, B. (2008) Assessment 2.0: Modernising Assessment in the Age of Web 2.0 [online], Scottish Qualifications Authority; available from http://www.scribd.com/doc/461041/Assessment-20 (Accessed 12th April 2011)

Mayes, T. and de Freitas, S. (2004) ‘Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models’ [online], Bristol, The Joint Information Systems Committee, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20%28Version%201%29.pdf (Accessed 24^th May 2011).

H807 Week 15: My approach to teaching and learning

My most recent learning programme contains several elements that are typical of my approach.

From what I have read so far, I think I incorporate a bit of all three associationist, cognitive and situative elements in my work.

Maybe it's because my business clients have a clear objective in what they want their people to learn, but I always need clear objectives/outcomes for an event. Having set these out, I then plot out a very clear route through the material that people need to learn. I think these are both associationist characteristics.

A firm bias of mine is to ask delegates to carry out pre work, which gets them thinking about the subject before they attend the event proper. This pre-work begins the process of how the learning is going to apply to the real world. This connects with another bias, which is to bring real examples/situations from the workplace into the classroom; customer feedback, well known work issues, well known objections are all examples of this.

When it comes to how I get the message across, I like to create a variety of activities; some will be informative, for example a video case study, a model or organising framework, an input with stories and examples, a worksheet with relevant information; others will be activities/mini projects/problem solving etc. I like to be able to vary the learning styles that are called on for these activities - eg. music, drawing, discussions, fun, physical activities.

Where possible, I like to get delegates to teach each other, and draw on each others' experience. In my most recent programme, mixed groups put together a description of the highlights of the company's growth and development to date drawing on each others' experience, and some background information provided by us.

I also favour groups discussing topics and coming up with their own version of the truth. This lets organisers assess the extent to which the message is being picked up.

Finally, I have a belief that for people truly to take on board a new message, they have to put themselves (physically, if possible) into the subject, and get a feel for its real meaning. I usually set this up with a collaborative activity in small groups, which most often has a light hearted dimension to it - performance is usually an important element.

The balance between the three theories of learning in my approach varies from project to project, and client to client, but I definitely don't prefer the lecturing/input approach. Some of my colleagues (especially the American ones!) are much more comfortable with being the subject matter expert, but I am less so.

Ref:
Mayes, T. and de Freitas, S. (2004) ‘Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models’ [online], Bristol, The Joint Information Systems Committee, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20%28Version%201%29.pdf (Accessed 24^th May 2011).

Analysing the Monticello Website

I have gone about the analysis of the Monticello website comparing the affordances of the website with the declared mission and vision of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.
It's mission is :

• preservation -- to conserve, protect, and maintain Monticello in a manner which leaves it enhanced and unimpaired for future generations -- and
• education -- to interpret and present Thomas Jefferson to the widest possible audiences, including scholars and the general public.

Followed by their vision:

• The Thomas Jefferson Foundation engages a global audience in a dialogue with Jefferson’s ideas.
• Facilitate conversations and to use its extensive research and knowledge to stimulate interactions on a variety of topics that were of keen interest to Jefferson, the most powerful of which are liberty and self government.  Through virtual, off-site and on-site engagement, the Foundation seeks to excite the world about Jefferson’s relevance today and ignite a passion for history.

The website has done an excellent job of presenting this extensive knowledge in a format that makes it interesting and engaging for a wide audience. Accessibility and interest are achieved in many ways: 

• The house and grounds are described in separate short mulitmedia animations.
• These animated tours incorporate many of the different areas of interest in the house and grounds (history, architecture, geography, culture, people etc)
• Commentary is given in audio and written format, which caters for different disabilities and preferences.
• Floor plans and maps of the grounds accompany the animations
• Extensive background/further reading material is presented by organising it in separate subject matter sections.
• Users can explore whichever areas interest them at their own pace.
• I was able to access the material via both pc and mobile devices.

I noticed it has missed a number of opportunities to fulfill its vision and mission:

• Sadly english appears to be the only language (misses the global ambition?)
• Although the site educates in an engaging format, there is no way of interacting with the site via feedback, blog etc. (misses offsite interactive and engage in dialogue ambitions?)
• I came across no use of music (lost excitement opportunity?)

All in all, I think a creditable job of presenting the material reflecting many of the values of the organisation has been done. 

I imagine three keystone species which were essential in creating the website were: 

• all of the various historical/subject experts, 
• sensitive multimedia artefact designers
• people with extraordinary user focus, who can look at this subject naively

I  can see how the group that have created the site are operating in an ecology, but am not sure how the user becomes part of that ecology, other than as an observer. Or have I missed the point here?