This document outlines our proposed instructional design strategy for e-learning projects. It also describes the implementation of this strategy. This document is based on:
• Research and findings drawn from fields such as e-learning, instructional design, and cognitive psychology.
• Our accumulated knowledge of what works and what doesn’t.
• The business realities of projects such as these; in other words, on the need to work efficiently and get the most “bang for the buck” for the training we develop.
• The necessity of creating e-learning that not only works in one language, but can be developed in multiple languages.
Framework
E-learning design is not like other instructional design. It typically lacks the emotional punch of a gifted trainer, and the motivational component of most personally guided learning. Consequently careful attention has to be paid to achieve our learning goals. To do this, we use frameworks to help guide us in our learning. This section discusses these frameworks. We will then derive principles and practices from this framework. Our two main learning goals are:
• Retention of knowledge until the opportunity to apply the learning occurs
• Transfer of knowledge to all appropriate application situations, regardless
of whether the situation was seen in the learning experience.
To accomplish these goals, we apply frameworks derived from
learning theory. The
frameworks guide us, and from them we derive specific principles that dictate content, interactivity, technology.
Three major frameworks are important:
• The first is cognitive–understanding how people learn.
• The second is emotional–understanding what makes people want to learn.
• The third deals with the individual expectations for learning–what are learner’s rights and responsibilities?
Cognitive
What is the best way for people to learn? We believe that a theory known as Cognitive Apprenticeship1 (with some modifications, discussed below) serves as the best model to guide learning. Others agree with this approach. There are different elearning theories, but they are “converging” into what can be described as Cognitive Apprenticeship.
1 Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible.
American Educator, 6-11, 38-46.
Cognitive Apprenticeship includes these key elements:
• Modeling the desired behavior for learners, by an expert, and explaining the underlying thought processes (i.e., the expert says, “This is what I do and this is why I do it”).
• Scaffolded practice, where the learner performs with initial support that is gradually removed
• Reflection where the learner links their performance to the appropriate framework. We want to help the learner understand what they’ve accomplished, and more, help them keep the knowledge active between practice and application, and point them in further directions. Focused on cognitive skill acquisition, this is a powerful framework for learning. As we apply these elements, we need to remember that people think in terms of mental models of the world.2 Models are the basis for the way we understand the world. It turns out that if we learn in terms of models, that information is more robust in the face of problems and over time than rote information. We can apply the information in a broader range of situations. Consequently, our content presentation needs to rely on models with mnemonics (to assist learners remember) as opposed to rote learning. (Technically, this is an addition to the Cognitive Apprenticeship
theory.)
Emotional
In addition to understanding the cognitive reasons for how we learn, we need to consider what makes us want to learn. It is useful to consider the following:
• Affective elements–those personality characteristics or preferences that determine our learning style, or how we prefer to learn.
• Conative elements–those motivational elements that make us want to learn.
Affective
Affective are individual personality characteristics or preferences. These are often measured with tests or frameworks such as Myers-Briggs, Kolb, or Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences. Personality psychology is mapping many to a “Big 5” set of characteristics. This plays out, in learning, to learning styles. While the literature is, frankly, a mess (to use the technical term), individual learning characteristics can be important. Basically, if you have certain particular biases in your audience, you should be sensitive to them. This should be balanced with an emphasis on approaches that are known to be most effective. If a learner’s culture reflects “bad habits,” such as pervasive skimming rather than reading, you want to scaffold (gradually move) them from that culture to one that’s based upon the best principles. (One way to do this might be to use frequent tests to force them to review short chunks of material.) Finally, the best learning design is appropriate for all learning styles, as the principles for successful learning include elements that cover a variety of representations, with an emphasis on presenting information different ways (e.g., visual and auditory). (This will assist with accessibility issues as well.)
2 See Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L.(1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conative
The other component, conative, is another matter. This component has to do with motivation and intention. Simply put, motivated (and less anxious) individuals learn better. Mentors can assess and address motivation and anxiety face to face, but is harder in online learning, and is very difficult in an asynchronous and independent environment. Consequently, extra steps need to be taken.
Managing the learners’ motivation is important; we need to hook the learner in emotionally before they are ready to begin learning. Helping them understand the importance of the outcomes in ways that connect to their goals and priorities is important (e.g., tell them in advance how what they are about to learn will help them do their job). Similarly, the examples and practice contexts need to be ones they recognize as valid and real. We also need to manage the learners’ anxiety. We don’t want them to be anxious about the learning, so we need to ensure that their experience is what they expect (no unpleasant surprises), and that they recognize that their learning is in a safe environment. We’d like to set the learner’s expectations and tell them what they’ll be experiencing, acknowledging when some components may be tough, and helping them understand and maintaining their commitment through those parts, and celebrating when they’ve completed.
Overall, we want to consider the learners’ emotional reaction. We want wry recognition of how this learning’s important at the beginning, and some anticipation that’s both eager but slightly uncertain about the upcoming experience. Then we want thoughtful engagement and a growing feeling of competence and confidence, followed up with the experience of closure and completion. Creating an experience that engages them in the learning in this manner is the goal. Note that one of the component parts of emotional appeal is humor, which can minimize anxiety, as well as provide relief that helps maintain a positive attitude. Humor is hard to do well, but when done well is superior to presentations without it. Consequently, humor is recommended in appropriate doses to the audience and topics. Internationalization should always be considered when humor is used.
Individual
A final framework is adopted from the interface design concept of user-centered. In this case, however, it’s not learner-centered, but learning-centered. This means that we put the emphasis on the process of learning, as well as the product. However, that does not preclude putting an emphasis on a process that is respectful of the learner.
One way to show respect for the learner is to just present the information they need. John Carroll‘s landmark book The Nurnberg Funnel,3 is the standard-bearer for minimalist instruction. Under minimalist instruction, we respect the learner’s prior knowledge about the world, and use that to the learner’s benefit. Consequently, we provide the minimal amount of information necessary to support them in performing. Any more than that is not respectful of the learner.
Here are some other rights and responsibilities.
Learner’s Rights
• To know where they are going: Learners have a right to know what their goals are, and what they’ll be able to do differently when they are done with the training.
• To know where they are: Learners have a right to know how far along they are, and how they’re doing.
• To be guided: Learners have a right to support in learning, both process and emotion.
• To take control: Learners can choose to take control of the learning process, going where they want, starting and stopping when they want, and failing safely.
• To not have their time wasted: Learners have a right to the most effective and efficient learning possible, and the minimum necessary, without unnecessary content or activity.
• To the right media: Learners have a right to have the most effective media matched to the content, and to the right level of interaction for their practice.
• To be together: Learners should have access to an expert, as no content can anticipate all confusions, and they should also have access to their peers.
Learner’s Responsibilities
• To do the work: Learners have a responsibility to seriously engage in the
content and activities, make conscious choices, and review feedback.
• To be selective: Learners have a responsibility to be selective in their activities, before committing to a serious and targeted response to questions.
• To ask questions: Learners have a responsibility to take control of their own
understanding, and ask questions if the answers they get don’t suffice.
3 Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer
Skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
{ 0 comments… add one now }
Leave a Comment