ELD 2

………………………………………………………………………………………

Subject: E-Learning Design
Code: 013090
Lecturer: Eileen Chau

Student Name: Prue Salter
Assignment No 2
(e-Learning Design Case Study – implementing and evaluating my e-learning design model.)

Word count: 3483

………………………………………………………………………………………

1. CONTEXT

Enhanced Learning Educational Services (ELES) provides support to secondary schools to develop students’ study skills through sessions and resources. Our latest venture is a subscription based service study skills handbook website.

This site (www.studyskillshandbook.com.au) is for the use of secondary school students, parents and teachers. Students can browse the site as needed at home, or secondary teachers can take a class to a computer lab to work through one of the 26 different units.

The justifications for taking an e-learning approach were that it would enable me to:
• Share my insights with a much larger audience than possible in a face to face setting.
• Share a larger body of knowledge than I could in the limited time currently available with students.
• Have opportunities for interaction with students on a more personal level that could not exist in a single seminar with 100 students.
• Facilitate a knowledge base where students could learn from the experiences and ideas of other students.
• Give teachers a resource they could use to follow-up on the ideas presented.
• Give students the opportunity to explore on an ‘as-needs’ basis.
• Continually update and improve the materials in a timely manner unlike a printed resource.
• Provide up-to-date links and resources for students to access.
• Give time-poor teachers an option to consider when looking for ways to help their students develop skills in this area.
• Allow schools a flexible option that they could tailor to their school considering what they currently do in this area and their access to school computers.
• Allow parents the opportunity to increase their understanding of the skills students need for academic success.
• Allow students the opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas.
• Create more meaningful learning experiences and cater for different learning styles through the use of media.
• Foster a sense of excitement and interest in the topic of study skills which is traditionally a boring subject.

The design idea to be explored was taking existing units and converting them into modules based on strong e-learning principles where students are stepped sequentially through the ideas.

The design model I developed as my framework is shown in Appendix 1.

When entering the AIM model an ongoing process of evaluation, implementing changes and re-evaluating begins. Watson (2001) makes the point that education in the past has presented things as fixed and static whereas knowledge changes – good learning materials need to reflect this. Therefore a selling point of this product is that it is an ever-expanding, ever-improving learning experience for students.

Feedback is therefore to be regularly collected through a variety of ways: formal surveys, informal discussions, interviews, focus groups, online evaluation/feedback/suggestions options. The feedback is collated and a solution is proposed to deal with the issues raised, implemented then feedback collected again.

My learners are at the centre of my model with the encompassing circle to represent my role. As this is small business, I am responsible for the design process and also play an active support role where students can ask questions, raise issues, make suggestions – hence the arrow from the circle (ELES) to the students.

Main Model Components:

ANALYSE:
Understanding the needs of the learner and other relevant stakeholders is essential and so emphatic design principles as discussed by Nichani (2002) were the guiding force behind the first component of my model.

There are a large number of stakeholders with divergent needs and perspectives. Many of these needs could be at cross purposes to each other – balance is needed between helping students develop their skills and teachers perceiving it as a valuable tool, yet having enough enjoyable activities to keep students engaged.

INVESTIGATE:
The next stage in the model was to investigate possible design solutions to meet these learning needs. This begin with the two main outputs from the ANALYSE step: specific learning needs outcomes and collated concerns/considerations. The next step was to investigate how these needs are best met.

Data is to be collected on a regular, ongoing basis. Smaller changes from incidental feedback can be made on a weekly basis, monthly updates for medium-sized projects and annual updates for larger overhauls.

Through my readings, particularly Teo and Williams (2006), I developed a number of considerations that influenced the design at this stage. These are the core instructional design principles for this context.

MODULE:
The idea of learning objects discussed by Mason, Pegler and Weller (2005) inspired me with the idea of creating a module for each unit to meet the learning needs (a modification of the learning objects concept).

This stage of the model has two parts:
– technical creation of the module
– reference back to the key design principles to ensure these have been adhered to during the design development.

The model then proceeds back to the evaluation phase – an ongoing cycle. The aim is that the online study skills handbook continually responds to the changing needs of students, explores new areas for learning and focuses on looking for more effective ways to meet learning needs through facilitation of the design process.

2. E—LEARNING DESIGN PROCESS

Following is an account of the implementation process of the design model.

ANALYSE.

Small support groups of students and teachers were selected from 3 schools of differing backgrounds with two initial meetings scheduled. In addition to this 10 consultants from the target sector (a mix of students, parents, teachers, principals in geographically diverse locations) were also sent specific questions via email as opposed to the small groups where we met face to face. Online surveys and feedback mechanisms for the 60 schools currently using the handbook were also set up.

The meetings with the 3 schools were informal discussions which I facilitated. My role was to stimulate discussion and ask open-ended questions to get the ideas and thoughts flowing.

The first meeting I had asked all members prior to the meeting to explore the existing handbook site and examine the module style version I had set up (as a starting point to generate ideas) of one of the units and compare that as an alternative to the existing style of the units.

It was clear from the meetings that the handbook really was viewed as much more than Nichani’s (2002) digital page turner but the feedback about the module was surprising.

The majority of the teachers liked the idea of the module-style approach as an alternative to the existing approach as it meant they knew students were being stepped through the content sequentially and thoroughly.

However, the students made it clear they did not want just one or the other approach, they wanted both! They wanted the flexibility of exploring the unit in its current form where they did not HAVE to go through all activities in a structured stepped approach but instead could pick and choose what they wanted to explore, but they also liked having the option of the module approach.

The message was clear. Teachers wanted to feel assured that students had completed the work and students wanted the flexibility to work through the units in a manner that best suited them. I, like the teachers, had seen the module system as something that would REPLACE the existing units but the students made it clear to me they wanted choice and flexibility.

This feedback led to the realization that the modules could be developed to perform a very specific and worthwhile function. One of the key elements of Teo and Williams (2006) theoretical framework for online learning is that learning should be acquired through opportunities for reflection and active construction of knowledge. My new idea was that I could create case-based scenarios in the module leading to a more authentic activity for student learning.

I suggested to the consultants that instead of taking the existing material in the units and massaging it into a module-style approach, I would leave the units untouched so students could still have the flexibility to explore and instead take the concepts and principles of the existing material and create real-life problem solving scenarios in the module to help students see if they could apply the concepts from that unit to the module. Looking at this from Aldrich’s (2004) delivery elements perspective, the units are the pedagogical elements (and also encompass the game elements as this is where any games are found) and the module related to that unit is the simulation element.

My consultants thought that a great idea and gave suggestions on things I might include: a video message, adding the module to the existing tracking system so teachers can check which modules students had completed. I also emailed the 3 groups to see what they thought of the idea and again feedback was positive. They believed this could be a good way to meet the divergent needs.

My next stage was to develop the graphical storyboard of this new concept.

3. GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF E-LEARNING SOLUTION

There were two main factors that led to this storyboard.

Teachers wanted to feel assured that students had worked through the material and knew the concepts. When reading Smith (2005) about readiness for online learning I couldn’t help but think in my case it is mostly teachers not students who need to develop this readiness. There is a tendency to want traditional instruction methods translated into a computer equivalent and suspicion of anything that strays from this formula. But the reality is that this website will be used as adjunct instruction as discussed in Hartley (2007) where the teacher and technology must work together, so it is essential that teachers have the opportunity to provide feedback.

Students did not want their flexibility compromised, they wanted to be able to browse as needed (this is supported by Bonk and Zhang (2006) who point out that the options available in online environments can make learning more explicit).

By keeping the existing units as they were and creating an additional module for each unit, students’ desire for freedom to explore would not be compromised. By taking a real-life problem solving approach with scenarios to be solved in the module, teachers could feel assured that students can apply the knowledge from the unit relating to that module. If they have trouble with the module, then they can go back to the related unit. This approach was also a much more educationally sound option and would allow me to adhere to my key design principles.

In the second meeting with the groups the initial prototype for the module was discussed. There was good usability feedback given, the style was approved and the concept embraced. Other key suggestions which were made (either in the group meetings or from ‘consultants’ via email) that have now been incorporated in the storyboard and thus the module were:
– change the video intro to a video summary at the end
– allow students not just to compare their answers to the model answers but rank them as well
– use student responses to improve model answers
– give students suggestions for competition entries ie digital work they could create to enhance others’ understanding of this topic
– take out the links to the ‘content’ as they was seen as confusing and instead make it clear that students needed to feel confident with this material before starting the module, or could return to the unit if needed
– allow students to give feedback and suggestions on module and content before exiting
– ensure warnings in place if students exit part-way through.

The feedback took the module development forward in leaps and bounds to a new draft that was placed on the site to gain feedback from all users.

4. DESIGN RELATED ISSUES

The third phase of my design is where I focused on the MODULE component. With the initial prototype developed I now returned to the key design principles to ensure that these had been adhered to.

• Flexible Constructivist Approach:

Teo and Williams (2006) make the point that learning can come from a variety of sources and occur in diverse ways. This supports the flexible solution developed as students can explore the unit, do quizzes, videos etc, use the worksheet to work systematically, and then see if they can apply their knowledge in the case-study based module. Hedberg (2006) stresses that students value access to information with the flexibility to pre-read or catch-up, and by keeping the module separate from the unit this flexibility is retained.

Another aspect outlined by Teo and Williams (2006) for effective online learning is that learning needs to be constructed through the students’ activities, developing rich learning experiences with a flexible format. By using real-world scenarios, the module allows students to construct their own schema for that unit then contribute to the knowledge base as students compare their responses to the model answer then suggest ways the model answers could be improved based on the ideas they developed. Students are also given ideas on digital creations they could submit on this topic as ideally it is best if some of the content could be student-generated.

This ensures a greater measure of cognitive scaffolding as the unit allows students to compare the level of their existing knowledge and fill in gaps before moving to the higher level processes needed for module completion.

• Sequenced, Activity Based Engaging Problems

Grabe and Grabe (2001) explain that with generative learning a student selectively attends to events and generates meaning for these experiences by relating them to existing knowledge or by drawing inferences. The case-study based module allows students to do this with learning experiences that are problem based, with proper chunk size and sequencing. It also supports Grabe and Grabe’s contention that learners must mentally act on information they receive if knowledge transformation is to occur.

• Evaluation and Tracking System

Romeo (2004) stresses the importance of problem solving with assessment activities that reflect the learning goals as well as self-evaluation to encourage risk-taking. Students can self-evaluate by using the quizzes in the units then apply their knowledge in the module as well as give suggestions and feedback and see their ideas incorporated.

The tracking system allows teachers to track progress and by monitoring page statistics student interest levels can be determined.

5. ANALYSIS OF THE E-LEARNING DESIGN PROCESS AND OUTCOMES, CHANGES TO MODEL, KEY DESIGN-RELATED INSIGHTS, INDICATIONS OF NEW DIRECTIONS, QUESTIONS OR ISSUES TO PURSUE.

The e-learning design process was a very valuable experience. As a small business owner I am not constrained by the need for committee approvals or sign-offs, but the disadvantage of this is that it is easy to rush straight to implementation without proper investigation and consultation in the design phase.

Therefore the key design-related insight I have gathered is the realization that the process of design is one I tended to approach haphazardly in the past. It is easy when you have strong opinions and are your own boss to make arbitrary decisions. This process has emphasized the value of evaluation and feedback during the design process rather than after the product has been created as then greater work is needed to re-engineer. With each piece of feedback I receive, new ideas are generated for ways to improve the handbook. In large organisations committees are often forced to go through these processes anyway but for small business a good design model ensures that key steps are not skipped or glossed over, that proper consultation and collaboration occurs and the final result is a more valid e-learning outcome.

My e-learning design model was an excellent fit to my purpose. I would like to think that the fact that I do not wish to change any aspects of my model reflects a well-thought out development of the design model rather than a lack of reflection after implementation. But spurious changes in order to appear deeply analytical would not be productive. The reality is my model has worked extremely well for the intended purpose. The model guided me through each stage ensuring I did not leap ahead to implementation without considered thought. There are no changes I feel I need to make to my model at this stage.

However the reason I feel my model was so successful was that I had a very defined project scope and domain. When the parameters are very clear and the model is designed to specifically meet these criteria it is difficult for the model to not meet the design needs. This could be seen as a limitation of my model as with each new design idea I would need to re-examine my model to see if the principles still hold true. This is something that will be determined with experience.

My approach to design has become more formalised. The key lesson I have learnt is that following a good design process ultimately saves time and results in a better product. A number of major new directions and design issues to explore have arisen from this design experience and are outlined as follows.

Bennett, Maton and Kervin (2008) challenge the generally accepted notion of digital natives and the assumption that all students are at a certain technological standard. It may be necessary to consider assessing students’ skill levels as I definitely have made assumptions about students’ technological literacy.

Teo and Williams (2006) also point out that students need the opportunity to reflect between experiences. Ideally it would be useful if students could save their work, and this raises the notion of allowing students to save the module and perhaps develop an e-portfolio as discussed by Mason, Pegler and Weller (2005). This leads to an entirely new design project where options such as PebblePad (http://www.pebblepad.co.uk/) can be explored as possible solutions. Barrett (2004) discusses the complexity of digital portfolios and raises a number of issues about the types of learning these can engender. It will be interesting to see in the future how the current design model works with this particular project.

It is generally accepted that learners need to be engaged and motivated by what they are learning. Barab, Arici and Jackson (2005) in their investigation of the use of technology in learning conclude that students’ motivations to learn are multi-dimensional and complex. As study skills is not a topic students are always enthusiastic about, it is worth considering developing a recognition system for completing modules such as the concept in the e-par® Environmental Management System (http://www.epar.com.au/ ) where as users work through the process they completed golf course holes. This is definitely another interesting project I would like to explore.

Herrington, Reeves and Oliver (2006) outline a number of characteristics of authentic tasks. The module developed through this design process meets a number of these criteria: real world relevance, it allows students to examine tasks from different perspectives, provides the opportunity to reflect, and is integrated with assessment. However, there are certainly areas that could be expanded upon: looking at creating more ill-defined tasks, allowing investigation to take place over a time period (which relates back to e-portfolios and saving work) and providing the opportunity to collaborate. Although there are constraints on the site with the large numbers of students involved and privacy concerns the need for a more collaborative approach is something I will also explore and leads to my next idea.

One of the difficulties of this project is that unlike the case studies discussed by Woo et al (2007) where student motivation levels are quite high, there are limitations placed on the types of authentic tasks that can be developed as there needs to be a high level of tracking in place so teachers can check students’ work. Woo et al outline a number of excellent ideas about creating authentic activities with meaningful interaction. In the past I have felt constrained as unlike a quiz there is no way to check if students have completed the activity. But Woo et al have stimulated a thought that perhaps I am placing unnecessary restrictions on my learners. Not everything needs to be tracked and monitored. This has led to the idea of creating an extension section where these sorts of activities are outlined. Teachers will then have the option of working specifically with their class on the collaborative tasks with feedback coming specifically from that teacher (as opposed to from ELES which would not be possible with the number of students and nature of the tasks) and the teacher monitoring students’ progress (as opposed to the tracking system). By removing the self-imposed restriction that the system must be all things to all people and allowing a greater level of involvement to take place between individual teachers and classes a whole new range of activities opens up.

In some ways this design process has been disturbing as it has raised more questions than it has answered! But a good design process should stimulate ideas and generate new directions and this has certainly occurred in this instance.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, C. (2004). Clark Alrich’s Six Criteria of Educational Simulation. Available: http://www.learningcircuits.org/NR/rdonlyres/567F34FA-E9C9-494F-AF4F-8DCE6199716C/4719/clark_e2.pdf [accessed: 30 Sept 2008]

Barab, S., Arici, A. and Jackson, C. (2005). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design-based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology 45 (1):15-21. Available: http://inkido.indiana.edu/research/onlinemanu/papers/eat%20your%20veggies23.pdf
[accessed 12 Sep 2008]

Barrett, H. (2004). Electronic Portfolios as Digital Stories of Deep Learning.
Available: http://electronicportfolios.com/digistory/epstory.html
[accessed: 12 Sep 2008]

Bennett, S., Maton, K and Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 39 Issue 5, pp 775-786.

Bonk, C. and Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 Model: Online learning for
diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2): 249-264.

e- par® Environmental Management System website
Available: http://www.epar.com.au/ [accessed: 10 Oct 2008]

Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2001). Conceptual models for school learning. In M. Grabe & C. Grabe (Eds). Integrating technology for meaningful learning 33rd Edtn. pp 56-76. Houghton MifflinPlace of Publication : Boston

Hartley, J. (2007). Teaching, learning and new technology: a review for teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, Jan 2007, Vol 38 Issue 1, p42-62

Hedberg, J. G. (2006). E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), pp.171-183

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. & Oliver, R. (2006) Authentic Tasks Online: A synergy among learner, task and technology. Distance Education, 27(2): 233-247.

Mason, R., Pegler, C. Weller, M. (2005). A Learning Object Success Story. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, Volume 9, Issue 1 – March 2005.

Nichani, M. (2002). Emphatic Instructional Design. Elearningpost. Available: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/empathic_instructional_design/ [accessed 10 Oct].

PebblePad web site
Available: http://www.pebblepad.co.uk/ [accessed: 20 Oct 2008]

Romeo, G. (2004). Teaching, learning and technology: Research, Reform, Realise the Potential. Keynote Paper presented at the ACEC 2004 Australian Conference for Computers in Education, Adelaide, Australia.

Smith, P.J. (2005). Learning Preferences and Readiness for Online Learning. Educational Psychology, 25(1):3-12.

Teo, S. and Williams, J. (2006). A Theoretical Framework for Effective Online Course
Design. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1): 12-21.

Watson, D. (2001). Pedagogy before Technology: Re-thinking the Relationship between ICT and Teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251-267

Woo, Y., Herrington, J., Agostinho, S. and Reeves, T. (2007). Implementing Authentic Tasks in Web-Based Learning Environments. EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY, No 3, pp 36-43. Available: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0735.pdf
[accessed: 2 Oct 2008]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *