E-learning Curve Blog at Edublogs

This month’s Learning Circuits Blog Big Question is

In a Learning 2.0 world, where learning and performance solutions take on a wider variety of forms and where churn happens at a much more rapid pace, what new skills and knowledge are required for learning professionals?

As Harold Jarche and Jay Cross have already addressed the “learning” part of the discussion with informative and illuminating posts on the topic I’m going to talk about the business aspect of the “performance” element highlighted in The Big Question.

Now read on…

I strongly believe that to survive and maybe even prosper in these leaner economic times, those of us involved in L&D need to understand that we are also business people. As in any enterprise, we are connected to our customers and clients through a variety of sophisticated and interconnecting partnerships: with organizations, with vendors, with the board of directors, with employees, and ultimately and most importantly with learners.

Our product is our special expertise in learning and development (and all that this entails), and our market is more competitive now than it has ever been. I would assert that if, as a trainer, you feel that you are somehow shielded from the realities of business in the early 21st century, you probably won’t have much of a career in five years time.

Enterprises need e-learning. The pace of organizational change in most companies requires a constant refreshing of skills and the continual development of new competencies. In many organizations, not choosing e-learning as a method to deliver key training initiatives usually means it will not be delivered at all. To remain competitive, enterprises need to:

• Provide continual, up-to-date training and professional development
• Distributable to knowledge workers across multiple delivery channels
• Implement scalable training solutions
• Ensure plan is developed and deployed within a matter of months, rather than quarters or years
• $$$ Demonstrate economic viability $$$

Learning professionals should heed their organizations’ strategic and business imperatives, align with them, and deliver appropriate solutions to support them. To make this happen, my view is that learning professionals need to have (or should develop) the skills and expertise to perform in the following domains:

Sadly none of this is sexy, but it’s what I believe you need to accomplish to be successful in this domain.

In meetings in my organization I have been known say that being a learning & development professional is a bit like running a truck company. It’s my job to get stuff to the people who need it, and to be honest my customers don’t really care how it gets there, once it arrives on time and it good shape. To extend the analogy, I could argue that Web 1.0 e-learning was like a sports car - it looked great and made a big impact wherever it arrived, but it was quite impractical, required a lot of TLC and maintenance, and while it may be high-performing on the (one-way) racetrack of the information superhighway, try maneuvering it around the multi-storey car park of most organizations’ networks.

Web 2.0 is without equal at delivering vast amounts of information. It is an accessible, multiplex environment, so data can move back, forth, left, right - wherever it needs to go. Learning 2.0 leverages this facility exceptionally well, because communication of knowledge, skills, and expertise, is at the heart of training and learning.

Learning professionals who have supplemented their educational expertise with broader business skills have positioned themselves to add value to their enterprise facilitating their organizations’ performance requirements, and their customers’ learning needs. And that is a win-win situation. 

–

The number of tools and technologies for online training continues to grow. Despite economies being mired in a recession, literally hundreds of e-learning content authoring tools, learning management systems, and learning content management systems are being offered in the marketplace.

Brandon Hall Research, domain analysts for the e-learning industry and providers of  information about tools, technologies, and best practices related to employee training and enterprise learning have just released a comprehensive new guide called Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase 2009: A Buyer’s Guide to 120+ of the Best E-Learning Content Development Applications.

According to their press release, "the current edition of this online, database-driven KnowledgeBase contains 10-20 page profiles of 122 content development tools" including:

• 65 products to create online courses
• 26 products to create online tests and assessments
• 20 products to create software simulations
• 23 products to help you convert your legacy content to e-learning
• 9 products to create non-software simulations
• 8 products to create instructional games

They also include two online software applications:

• A selection tool that helps you narrow your product search by filtering out the tools that don’t meet your needs
• A comparison tool to help you see how two similar products differ

I recently published an article called What’s on your e-learning bookshelf? In it, I listed my shelf of “go to” e-learning texts. I’ve re-published the picture of my shelf below, so that you can see, right there in the middle, a text called E-learning Tools and Technologies by Horton and Horton.

In the early part of this decade learning and development professionals and educators found this text to be an invaluable reference resource. If you had a requirement to understand a new training modality or learning channel in a hurry (as many of us did in five or six years ago as we faster, better, and more integrated communications networks burgeoned) the Horton and Horton text was a good place to begin to find out about it. However, as we reach the end of the decade, the tools and some of the technologies in text (I have the first edition) is looking decidedly dated; Blogger.com was still owned by Pyra Labs; podcasting is not given a look-in in any shape or form. As far as I could discern through a brief search (on Amazon, Wiley Books Online, and Google Books), the 2003 edition is still in print.

The outcome of this is that while the text is still full of good advice, useful information, and valuable insight into topics associated with e-learning design, development and delivery, many  of the products it highlights are deprecated (Authorware), redundant (GoLive), or changed beyond recognition (most products featured in the text). In my view this is where resources like the Brandon Hall KnowledgeBase come into their own. While, necessarily, the text and the information is not as rich as in the Horton and Horton book (see Figure 1 for a comparison between the layout of the two resources), it’s competitive advantage is that is delivers bang up-to-date, regularly refreshed information, and a easy-to-use selection and comparison utility to choose and compare products.

Figure 1. Side-by-side of the texts: Horton (l), Brandon Hall (r)
[Click to enlarge]

In one sense, this is the threshold between the analog and digital forms of information delivery. Putting my cultural anthropology hat on for a moment, I would characterize this as a liminal state. Liminality has been described as "the place in between" (La Shure, 2009)  infused with ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy.

For example, as a university lecturer delivering a course on learning technology do I include E-Learning Tools and Technologies on the required reading list, or the more up-to-date Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase? How do I set a question on the information in the latter source as it is in one sense, just a list and description of products and their capabilities, with none of the context provided by the former text? Which is more "academic?" Does this reflect the text’s accuracy? Is the cost ($795 annual subscription) of Brandon Hall membership justifiable for students, or people who just was occasional access to information, as opposed to about $40 for the out-of-date Horton and Horton text. How much is the information worth?

These are  difficult questions to answer satisfactorily.

I have no doubt that over time, e-texts will become integrated into the mainstream of academic, professional, and consumer activity. Online libraries like MyAthens already provide access to a range of electronically-available materials for a nominal fee to the individual user as membership to institutions, universities, and libraries.

E-readers like the Kindle, and e-book software like Lexcycle Stanza (recently purchased by Amazon) are beginning to provide the facility to view electronic versions of printed texts.

Maybe this electronic means of access will become more generalized; I use Stanza on my iPhone and it’s changing my reading habits. Perhaps the current practice of hard- and e-texts being used in concert will become firmly embedded as the most effective method of using the old and the new. As usual, people will do what works for them, and the usual rules for adoption of innovations will apply.

Yet the question remains: How out-of-date is too out-of-date?

I think that my Horton printed text still has great value, especially in the context it provides for e-elearning-related technologies; yet I can’t rely on it to provide current information about specific e-learning authoring applications. With over ten years experience in the learning and development industry, I feel competent to apply my well-developed critical faculties to find out what I need from the range of knowledge and information at my disposal. Could I make my tacit, hard-earned ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information available to some-one else? Probably not.

How do you use the resources at your disposal? I’d love to hear your views and about your experiences - let me know.

___________

References:

Brandon Hall Research. (2009). Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase 2009: A Buyer’s Guide to 120+ of the Best E-Learning Content Development Applications. [Internet] Available from: http://www.brandon-hall.com/publications/atkb/atkb.shtml Accessed 29 June 2009

Horton, W., & Horton, K. (2003). E-learning Tools and Technologies: A consumer’s guide for trainers, teachers, educators, and instructional designers. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana

La Shure, C. (2009). Liminality. [Internet] Available from: http://www.liminality.org/about/whatisliminality/ Accessed 29 June 2009

–

A plea for (my) sanity to those people who comment on this blog in the following style:

This was exactly what I needed to read today! I am sure this has relevance to many of us out there.

Particularly when the ‘author’ has a name like “Wowee Meds” (or similar) and whose e-mail address is naosdh84235 at viagra dot tv or similar.

I’m not going to be publishing your comment. Ever.

My blog is not a platform to linkback to your sordid online activities and to boost your Google page rank.

Go away and waste someone else’s time.
–

I hadn’t planned on blogging about informal learning today, but an article in Irish e-zine Silicon Republic interested me, and I thought I’d bring it to you. According to the article Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise,  members of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CPA) have begun using social media such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn to co-ordinate continuous professional education. The CPA is the educational, representative and regulatory body for over 5000 members and students. The Institute’s role is to:

• Regulate CPAs in accordance with the law and the Institute’s Code of Ethics in the public interest.
• Ensure that CPAs are constantly up to date in all matters relating to their professional work.
• Maintain the highest levels of educational standards for new entrants to the profession.
• Represent the interests of members where appropriate.

The CPA’s Suzanne Shaw, outlined the reason for the emergence of non-formal and informal e-learning technologies in the Institute:

As one of [the bodies] in the Ireland that train accountants and regulate them throughout their professional life, our members are predominantly split three ways: practitioners; entrepreneurs; and employees of businesses.

All of them are at the coalface of the current economic climate and many of them use tools like LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook to give one another practical advice about sustaining businesses and planning for a long-term environment. It’s a great way to get information out to people really quickly.

It seems that the CPA members are using Facebook and Twitter to share articles and information to keep each apprised of developments in their domain. Ms. Shaw again:

The beauty of social networking is it enables two-way communication or, if you want, one-to-many communication. The CPA uses it to gauge feedback on courses and products and adjust them accordingly.

One of the benefits of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter is that they are "ready-made." The CPA’s experience is that they can concentrate on the business use of the technology without contributors having to worry about the technology per se. Despite being (by it’s very nature) a very traditional organization, the obvious business advantages of using these platforms for information-sharing seems to have eased the transition to using social media. There are a number of core uses of social media for learning in the CPA:

• The CPA recently set up a space on Facebook for new students to get and share information.
• In terms of professional use, with closed LinkedIn forums are used, so information can be kept confidential between members.
• CPA accountants are using Twitter as a way of relaying information or lobbying issues.
• Professional members make use of LinkedIn to keep in touch with each other, as well as business associates.

Interestingly, one of the main drivers of the growth in utilization of social media tools is that accountants’ clients are "pushing them to be more involved in online communication" according to Ms. Shaw.

It seems that once members are exposed to Web 2.0 technologies, they adapt their own information-sharing practices to include Twitter and Facebook. Ms. Shaw stated that:

Many share war stories and know-how in the forums. With CPE seminars taking place across the country, people not only meet up but can also keep in touch. Because people have hectic working lives and a home life to balance, they can’t get to every course or seminar, so they …use these tools to share notes and find out where the next course is taking place. Not every one can make it to the centre of Dublin after a day’s work, so we’ve started uploading video lectures. Students …are recording podcasts of lectures and sharing on places like Facebook. We estimate about 10% of our 5,500 members and students are using social media for continuous professional education. With Facebook, for example, they are truly engaging with one another. Many use it because they are that generation, others have begun dabbling. It can only grow from here.

Brutus, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar tells Cassius that 

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune

Act IV, Scene 3.

In a similar vein, I would suggest that there are trends in the uses and the adoption of technology. The current global economic environment as well as the emergence and broad adoption of easy-to-use Read/Write Web tools like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn in society-at-large are profoundly re-shaping the ways people and organizations communicate.

As we know from Rogers’ writings on diffusion of innovation, people’s attitude toward a new technology is a key element in its diffusion. Roger’s Innovation Decision Process theory asserts that innovation diffusion is a process that occurs over time through five stages:

   1. Awareness
   2. Interest
   3. Evaluation
   4. Trial
   5. Adoption

The final phase of the diffusion process is characterized by large-scale continued use of the idea or technology, and by "satisfaction with" (Diffusion of Innovations, 2003, p.2) the idea. This does not mean that the the individual or organization that has accepted the idea will use it constantly, rather, it means that the diffused idea has been integrated into their schema or metal model as a valuable asset or resource.

Figure 1 Diffusion of Innovation curve
[Click to enlarge]

Individuals or organizations will typically go through these processes at varying speeds, depending on factors ranging from the cost, time, and effort required to implement the diffused concept, the return on the investment, how well it aligns with their previous experience with similar concepts, as well as the complexity of the idea or technology under consideration. By endorsing and supporting a range of well-tested, free-to-use solutions, that are currently very positively received in the public consciousness due to their apparent ability to elect presidents (Obama), overthrow despotic regimes (Obama again for Dubya Iran), and circumvent traditional media channels (Michael Jackson’s death). Such momentum is hard to ignore, especially when coupled with the economic imperative of clients demanding access to CPA members’ skills via social media.

However, a corollary to the curve described in Figure 1 (above) is the Gartner Hype Lifecycle illustrated in Figure 2 (below).

Figure 2 Generic Gartner Hype Cycle
[Click to enlarge]

I would suggest that Twitter, Facebook etc are well on their way to reaching what Gartner describes as the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" associated with this type of innovation. It remains to be seen if the CPA can take this flood in the tide of technology and progress their non-formal learning initiatives, or if they will be "bound in shallows and in miseries" if they are unable to leverage the potential of this phenomenon.

___________

References:

Kennedy, J. (2009). Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise. Silicon Republic. [Internet] 29 June. Available from: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13271/ [Accessed 29 June 2009] 

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

–

And so my friends, we reach Number 20 in our journey of discovery around Instructional Design. That’s a month’s solid blogging, investigating one of the fundamental domains associated with our profession.

What have we learned? More of that anon, but for now I’m going to cover the the Seels and Glasgow Model in this E-Learning Curve Blog series on a systems approach to instruction design.

Now read on…

In a 2008 article called Can we reinvent e-learning? I asserted that

ADDIE emerged from the principles of project management, and resembles the philosophy and practice to this discipline’s methodology more than a pedagogy. Treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables.

In my view this is no bad thing: the reality is that Learning & Development is a pragmatic discipline, tasked with facilitating individuals in their endeavors to learn, educators would be poorly served if the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical epistemologies of the domain did not at least tacitly acknowledge the practical challenges associated with implementing learning programs. 

Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow’s Model (see Figure 1) reflect this assertion; they situate their understanding of ISD and their model on the thesis that design occurs in the context of project management (p. 177).

Figure 1. The Seels and Glasgow Model
[Click to enlarge]

Their model is distributed across the three phases of project management:

1. Needs Analysis Management
2. Instructional Design Management
3. Implementation Management

This distribution allows a learning program (or project) to be planned, resourced, and managed much as any other project in an organization is arranged.

In this model, the first phase (Needs Analysis) includes the establishment of the instructional goals, requirements, and context for the courseware. Next, the Instructional Design phase begins when Needs Analysis is completed: this second phase consists of six activities:

1. task analysis
2. instructional analysis
3. objectives and tests
4. formative evaluation
5. materials development
6. instructional strategy and delivery systems

- all of which are linked via feedback and interaction communications channels. In Phase Three of the model (Implementation and Evaluation) the development and production of materials, training delivery, and summative evaluation are undertaken.

As is usual in a systems-based approach to ID, the phases in this model can are typically applied in a linear fashion, but they are often applied iteratively. As Gustafson and Branch highlight, the steps in the instructional design phase are interdependent and concurrent, and multiple iterations of this process may occur during this part of the development lifecycle (2001, p.43).

In this sense - and reflecting on my ADDIE/PM remarks, we can say that this is a product-oriented approach to content development. According to Chen

Developing an instructional project involves skill sets ranging from project management and interface design to sound preparation and programming…Design teams represent various fields of expertise (producers, instructors, editors, etc.).

(2007 pp.2-3)

Managing potentially large teams and and hundreds (if not thousands) of media assets needs substantial resources and commitment, and requires strong project management to stay on time and budget at the appropriate quality of outputs.  To support this objective, Seels and Glasgow focus on the importance of well-designed materials, the need to identify and understand communication patterns within organizations, develop strategies for diffusion of innovations, and the importance of supporting learners.

Interestingly, Seels and Glasgow also include the concept of diffusion of innovations in their model:

The strategies that lead to diffusion are most effective if used during all the phases of a project.

(1998, p. 178)

They consider that when their model is applied ,the phases are generally linear in nature but

it is not necessary to complete a step before proceeding, and the order can be changed so that steps can be performed concurrently.

(1998, p 179)

We can say that this model successfully aligns to the systems philosophy epitomized in ADDIE quite will, while acknowledging the needs and limitations of the practical application of instructional design. Much like 3PD, formative evaluation via a feedback mechanism (multiple iterations rather than recursion) is a distinguishing (but not unique) characteristic of Seels and Glasgow’s approach.

Next time: What have we learned? The implications of Instructional Systems Design for E-Learning
___________

References:

Chen, I. (2007) Instructional Design Methodologies. In: Kidd, T. & Song, H. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Technology. IGI Global

Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional Technology. Columbus OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

–

In yesterday’s post, I looked at the ASSURE instructional design model, which was originally developed by Heinich et al in the 1990’s, and is now popularly and widely-used in both classroom and e-learning environments.

Given the ASSURE Model’s constructivist epistemology and successful implementation in early 21st Century educational contexts, you may be surprised to learn that the ASSURE methodology has it’s roots very firmly located the venerable, behaviorist-influenced (and occasionally criticized) Events of Instruction, devised by Robert M. Gagne.*

Now read on…

According to Kevin Kruse (2006)

Robert Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the systematic approach to instructional design and training. Gagne and his followers …focus [...] on the outcomes - or behaviors - that result from training.

I would assert that familiarity with Gagne’s work, and educators’ drive to continually investigate the New have perhaps led to a certain disregard (in some quarters) for the substantial contribution Gagne made to our discipline. For example, to characterize Gagne as a Behaviorist is, in my view, to underestimate the sophistication of his theories, the elegance of his models, and the relevance of his work today. Indeed, Walter Wager (2004) states that

Gagne didn’t feel that the behaviorist theories were adequate to explain human learning. Rather, Gagne should be considered one of the early cognitive psychologists.

(p.296)

As I have previously indicated, his work still influences theorists and learning practitioners today. During his career, Gagne primarily concerned himself with understanding "the process of learning" (1972, p.1). In his life, he was central to the development of five instructional theories:

1. the five domains of learning
2. events of instruction
3. conditions of learning
4. role of the media
5. integrated goal theory (Wager, 2004)

Gagne’s text The Conditions of Learning (first published in 1965) attempted to identify and describe the cognitive processes that occur in learning: the eponymous ‘conditions of learning.’ His philosophy was influenced by the concepts of cognitive mapping, as well as the information processing interpretation of the events that occur when (adult) learners are presented with various stimuli. In The Conditions of Learning, Gagne argued that that internal and external conditions of learning must be created to stimulate the desired learning response.

To understand the sequence of activities needed to support learning, Gagne suggested that tasks for

acquiring the intellectual skills needed should be organized according to complexity.

(Hriko, 2008, p.353)

He argued that information underwent a series of internal processes before being stored in long-term memory; he developed a nine-step process called the Events of Instruction to represent the manifestation of the external factors that influenced the acts associated with the process, which "correlate to and address the conditions of learning" (Hriko, 2008 p.353). Table 1 shows these instructional events in the left column and describes the associated mental processes in the right column.

Table 1. Nine Events of Instruction (after Gagne, 2004)

More…

* Yes, his name is Robert Gagné (with an acute aigu ), but English speakers typically don’t enter accents into Google, and I’m nothing if not pragmatic…
___________

References:

Gagne, R. M., (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1),pp.1-8.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. and Keller, J.M. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design (5th.Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Kruse, K. (2006). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction. E-Learning Guru. Internet: Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm Accessed 12 June 2009

Hriko, M. (2008) Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction. In: Tomei, L.A., Morris, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Information Science Reference

Wager, W. (2004) Robert M. Gagne. In: Kovalchick, A., and Dawson, K. (Eds.), Education & Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

–

As we saw when we investigated the Three-Phase Design Model, a number of stakeholders including subject matter experts, educationalists, and technical experts need to work together to design and develop learning programs and educational courseware.

The ASSURE Model is a constructivist approach to training design developed by Robert Heinich and Michael Molenda of Indiana University and James D. Russell of Purdue University in the 1990’s.

ASSURE is an acronym derived from the key verb descriptor of the tasks associated with the approach. As such, the model proposes a six-step guide for planning and delivering instruction; while not specifically designed for e-learning, in practice it the methodology seems to align to the requirements of designing courseware for that modality. 

The steps (or tasks) are described in detail in Table 1:

Table 1 ASSURE Model components (after Human Resource Development website)

While the learner’s needs, the instructional goals, and the availability or desirability of particular media are the drivers for the design and development, Gunter and Baumbach (Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia, 2003) state that

The instructional goals should be the focus, not the goal. When integrating technology, it should always be viewed as a tool that assists… the learning needs of the student. The teacher becomes a mentor and colearner, who is actively engaged in enabling students to access, analyze, apply, and create information electronically.

(pp.193-194)

More…

___________

References:

Gunter, G. & Baumbach, D. (2004). Curriculum Integration. In: Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia. (Kovalchick, A. & Dawson, K. Eds). ABC-CLIO; illustrated edition

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (2002). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Human Resource Development [Internet] Available from: http://itchybon1.tripod.com/hrd/id15.html Accessed 10th June 2009

–

One of the more interesting outcomes of the Three-Phase Design (3PD) model has been that while in and of itself it describes a strategic context from which to build and maintain online teaching and e-learning environments, it does not focus on more granular aspects of the design process proper.

According to Rod Sims (2008) there are six factors are essential to achieving engaging, interactive and memorable learning experiences (see Figure 1). The 3PD Model supports these factors by establishing the build-enhance-maintain process as core to successful project implementation. 

Figure 1. Six factors influencing e-learning design (after Sims, 2008)
[Click to enlarge]

Sims called this model Proactive Design for Learning (PD4L): the six factors  that enable the design of effective online teaching and learning are:

1. Theory-based, ensuring that decisions are based on contemporary approaches to teaching and learning.
2. Innovative and relevant (incorporating elements of proactive evaluation documented by Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002).
3. Team-based, with team members having the relevant and appropriate competencies to engage with and complete the design tasks (Sims & Koszlaka, 2008).
4. Emergent, allowing (where appropriate) the interactions between course participants to establish and introduce course content (Irlbeck, Kays, Sims & Jones, 2006).
5. Interactive, enabling participants to actively explore the relevance and application of the course content (Allen, 2003; Sims, 2006).
6. Personalized, such that participants are able to apply their own context and situation to the learning outcomes (Sims & Stork, 2007).

People (and organizations) do not adopt new ideas at the same time. Some adopt ideas when they are first introduced; others wait for varying periods of time; some never adopt an idea. In The Diffusion Process (1957), Bohlen and Beal maintain that

…the time span over which people adopt ideas will vary from practice to practice.

(p.4).

The authors’ research indicated that complexity of practice is a significant factor in determining the value of a diffused idea or technology in organizations. They defined the following categories of complexity:

• Change in material and equipment
• Improved practice
• Innovation
• Change in enterprise
• Cost

Three-Phase Design and it’s subsequent iterations are representative of educators’ responses to the challenges and opportunities afforded by the introduction, diffusion, and adoption of Web-based technologies in education: traditional approaches to instructional design do not necessarily fit the requirements of online learning. Of particular note in this context is the emergence of Constructivism as a theoretical framework for the development of online learning programs. In the PD4L Model, for example, Sims cites

theories including the social formation of the mind (Vygotsky, 1978), meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1968), situated cognition (Clancey, 1997), constructivism (Driscoll, 2005) and connectivism (Siemens, 2004).

(p.9)

He continues:

Together with a pragmatic, interpretivist epistemology, the PD4L model focuses on creating teaching and learning environments where relevant, meaningful knowledge is constructed by the individual.

When compared to the purely Functionalist (in the anthropological sense of the term) methodology of ISD, we can see that models like Sims and Jones’ are attempting to accommodate the power and flexibility afforded by digitally mediated technologies in the context of acquisition of skills, knowledge construction, and a more experiential view of learning, that the traditional systems-based approach.

More…
___________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957). The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Malinowski, B. 1990. A Scientific Theory of Culture. Reissue edition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster International.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, In: J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-147.

Sims, R. & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

–

When I was an undergraduate, I worked for a summer in the Phillips assembly plant in Eindhoven in The Netherlands. Life as a "gluer and screwer" or line assembly worker is quite repetitive, and repetitive, and repetitive, and repetitive, so my college friends and I tried to get to visit the cultural amenities of nearby Amsterdam as often as possible: yes, there are many galleries and museums to broaden a young man’s mind in one of the jewels in Europe’s  crown - I recommend it.

After one particularly "cultural" weekend, my friends and I found ourselves in Centraal Station waiting for our train back to Eindhoven, and across the platform I saw an odd thing: a group of skiers! My initial thought was that I had hit the culture a little too hard, what would skiers be doing in the Low Countries (which after all, is famed for its plains, lack of topographical relief, and general flatness), and in the Summer, no less?

Holland: notably bereft of the conditions for skiing

Eventually the answer seeped into my culture-addled brain: of course! They were going to the Alps! As a young lad from a small island nation on the western margin of Europe (the island without the Eurotunnel) it had simply never occurred to me that you could hop on a train in one country, and a few hours later be on the piste in Switzerland, Austria or Italy.

Living in Ireland, the only way I can travel off the island is by sea and by air. As a result of this situation, most Irish people have quite the soft spot for Aer Lingus, the Irish national airline. Until the emergence of Ryanair and other low-cost carriers, flying Aer Lingus was the only way to travel to foreign lands quickly and comfortably: it’s how I travelled to go on the piste (as it were) in Holland after all.

So I’m pleased to see that Aer Lingus have decided to use Moodle (another organization I have a much admiration for) for their Online Pilot Training courses. The aviation industry has been involved with e-learning for over twenty years - indeed, the first generally-used e-learning specification AICC was an aviation industry initiative, developing guidelines for the development, delivery, and evaluation of computer-based, and Web-based Training (and related training technologies).

AICC specifications are usually designed to be general purpose (and not necessarily aviation specific) so that learning technology vendors can spread their costs across multiple markets and thus provide products at a lower cost. This strategy has resulted in AICC specifications having broad acceptance and relevance to non-aviation and aviation users alike. Even today, AICC PENS (Package Exchange Notification Services) is a broadly-used standard implemented in many e-learning authoring packages, such as Adobe Captivate.

Aer Ling chose Enovation, an Irish Moodle Partner, to undertake on the consultancy in the project. Using Moodle, Enovation provided the following services in line with Aer Lingus’s technical requirements:

• Hosting – Provided secure solution hosting for Aer Lingus courseware.
• Training – Provided hands-on training to all administration staff at Aer Lingus.
• Reporting – To comply with industry regulations, Aer Lingus has to produce a report to show that users view and complete all tasks within Moodle. As part of this, Enovation integrated the third-party reporting solution, Jaspersoft, with Moodle to allow administrators to report on user activity.
• Branding – Enovation customized Moodle to match the Aer Lingus branding.
• Support – Enovation implemented a Web-based issue reporting and tracking system for Aer Lingus.
• Courseware – Enovation worked with Aer Lingus to transform their original course content into the Moodle environment.

According to Conor Rock, Training Captain at Aer Lingus,

Moodle has been universally well received by the pilots and we have reduced our training costs, what can I say - the project has been a huge success.

Captain Rock continued that Moodle could be used in other domains within Aer Lingus:

Moodle has obvious potential in other areas. I see Aer Lingus expanding Moodle to the wider employee base for cabin crew and technical training.

Next time: back to ISD

–

We’re approaching the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. I’ve no doubt that there will be a bombard of documentaries, retrospectives, and "why aren’t we there now?" features coming this July, surrounding the big day itself. This will brighten up my summer no end. Despite its Cold War beginnings, I happen to think that the Apollo-era US Manned Space Program represents the epitome of human vision and endeavor.

What has this got to do with instructional design, say you?

Well, read on…

NASA wouldn’t have got to the Moon, or even to the next town, without gimbals. Not only does NASA use gimbals for orienting rocket engines, but also when designing navigational systems and instrument panels. Without gimbals, it would have been very difficult for NASA to find a way to send astronauts safely into space.

A gimbal is a mechanism that helps to keep an object on target: it’s built into the platform’s systems to correct deviations  from a pre-determined goal.

On the Saturn V rocket, for example, gimbals were used to set the rocket at the correct pitch and yaw angles to safely "clear the tower" - that is, not bump into the rocket’s support gantry on lift-off. Later in the flight, gimbals pitched the rocket’s trajectory to align with the Earth’s curve for it’s journey into orbit (rocket’s don’t go "straight up" but rather ascend in an arc until they attain the required altitude).

So what space nerd. What has this to do with instructional design, say you again, losing patience?

In my view, the task gimbals* perform space flight is similar to the role evaluation performs in instructional design.

According to Donald Clark (2009)

Evaluation is the systematic determination of merit, worth, and significance of a learning or training process by using criteria against a set of standards.The evaluation phase is ongoing throughout the ISD process. The primary purpose is to ensure that the stated goals of the learning process will actually meet a required business need. Thus, it is performed during the first four phases of the ISD process.

Indeed, we can see that this strategy is codified in Dick and Carey’s approach (see Figure 1), where an ongoing review process indicated during the first six phases of the process.

Figure 1. Dick and Carey’s Model
[Click to enlarge]

Formal evaluations proper are undertaken in steps 7-9 of their model:

   1. Determine the instructional goal
   2. Analyze the instructional goal
   3. Analyze the learners and contexts
   4. Write performance objectives
   5. Develop assessment instruments
   6. Develop instructional strategy
   7. Design and conduct formative evaluation
   8. Revise instruction
   9. Undertake summative evaluation

Dick and Carey (2001) recommend three categories of of formative evaluations to support this process: one-to-one (or clinical) evaluation, small-group evaluation, and field evaluation, but in my view they don’t suggest a mechanism for evaluation per se, as the activities they suggest are standard ethnographical research methodologies. Similarly, while they consider on-going reviews to be a component the their ID model, the research suggests that In her 1989 article Evaluation of training and development programs: A review of the literature, Marguerite Foxon describes herself as "surprised" at the "general" and "superficial" nature of the research undertaken on evaluation, and considered that what was there was "difficult to understand and apply."

She continues:

Where evaluation of programs is being undertaken it is often a ’seat of the pants’ approach and very limited in its scope. …trainers often revert to checking in the only way they know - post-course reactions - to reassure themselves the training is satisfactory.

If the literature is a reflection of general practice, it can be assumed that many practitioners do not understand what the term evaluation encompasses, what its essential features are, and what purpose it should serve. …Many practitioners regard the development and delivery of training courses as their primary concern, and evaluation something of an afterthought."

She suggests that many practitioners prefer to "remain in the dark," concerned that any actual evaluation will "confirm their [the instructional designers'] worst fears" about the educational quality of the courseware they deliver, with the result that they "choose to settle for a non-threatening survey” of Kirkpatrick Level 1-style trainee reactions.

As we have seen in our look at the Three-Phase Design (3PD, in this model evaluation is not viewed as a post-delivery activity (Sims, 2008 p.5): the nature of Web-based education is such that changes can be made immediately (that is, during Phase 2 - Evaluate, Enhance, Elaborate), as long as those changes don’t affect the integrity of the learning program’s objectives. The second phase can be

"conceptualised to take place during course delivery, with feedback from both teachers and learners being used to modify and/or enhance delivery.

(p5)

Sims and Jones (2003) call this process "proactive evaluation" (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Proactive evaluation in 3PD
[Click to enlarge]

Using this approach, formative "feedbacks" occur between instructor and students during course implementation. The authors assert that this mechanism continues the dynamic collaboration between the members of the development team enhances. The second phase enables

generational changes in the course structure, with emphasis on the production (completion) of resources, and where learners can take a role of research and evaluation assistants. By developing and building effective communication paths between each of these three roles, a shared understanding of the course goals and learning outcomes can be established, thereby minimising and compromise in educational quality and effectiveness.

In my view, (as shown in Figure 3), the evaluation in this model is founded upon recursion. The enhancement process is undertaken by the actors (instructors, designers, and learners) using a strategy similar to the concept of optimal (or dynamic) programming, where complex problems are solved by breaking them down into simpler sub-problems.

Figure 3 Recursive evaluation in the 3PD Model
[Click to enlarge]

In essence, the enhancement process is repeated until the learning program is considered complete.

Even during the Maintenance Phase, the ongoing process of

gathering and incorporating evaluation data caters for the sustainability of the course.

(Sims, 2008 p.6)

Unlike the Dick and Carey and Kemp Models, 3PD supports overlapping roles, skills, and responsibilities. These contributions may well change through the lifecycle of a learning program, as the model promotes and supports the development of instructors and students’ knowledge, skill and experience via the virtuous circle of ongoing collaboration and communication between the actors, and the development of working relationships. The inclusion of learners in the content development process differentiates 3PD from the other models discussed here.

More…

*(Note to hardcore design-heads: this is a metaphor†: I’m not suggesting they’re literally equivalent. Go with it).

†Metaphor (n) -  a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

___________

References:

Clark, D. (2009). Evaluation in Instructional Design. [Internet] Available from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat6.html Accessed 12 June 2009

Foxon, M. (1989). Evaluation of training and development programs: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 89-104. [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet5/foxon.html Accessed 12 June 2009

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, In: J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

–