The E-learning Curve at Edublogs

This month’ LCBQ is:

Learning design differences for Digital Natives?:

1. Do you believe that we have to design, develop and deliver instruction differently for the so-called Digital Natives?
2. Are there differences in learning expectations and styles or can we just design good instruction and know that it meets all generational needs?
3. If you have an audience that includes natives and immigrants, how can you effectively design instruction without breaking the bank?”

In my view, we are on the threshold of a learning revolution, akin to the explosion of knowledge made possible after the general availability of printed texts following the invention of movable type and the printing press in 1440.

Now read on…

One of the first manifestations of this will be a total redefinition (or perhaps definition?) of e-learning. Right now, “E-learning” means different things to different people. When you consider that you can call the discipline “e-learning”, “elearning” or even “eLearning”, it’s no surprise that there is a range of definitions of the subject, as “we prefer to define things according to how we use them” (Morrison, 2004, p.4).

Clark and Mayer (2003) consider the “how, why and what” of e-learning: that the “e” in e-learning refers to the “how” - the course is digitised so that it can be stored. The “learning” refers to the “what” - the course includes content and ways to help people learn it, and the “why” - that the purpose is to help learners achieve educational goals or to help organisations build skills related to improve job performance (pp.13-14). The assumptions in their definition are telling: note the use of the term “course” and references to organisational skill-building – there is an inherent, unspoken claim on e-learning (what ever that is!) to be part of the corporate, human resources development arena.

Now consider Will Richardson’s Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, published only three years later. In the e-learning context, a quick scan through a text’s table of contents, introduction, or index will usually orient the reader to the author’s perspective on what they think e-learning is: not in this text. The very first point Richardson makes is that “this may look like a book about technology, but it’s really a book about …connections” (p.vii). With a nod to David Jonassen, the he discusses “cool tools”, “collaborations and conversations” and “creatively motivating students to learn more deeply” using a teaching and learning “toolbox” (p.9). He’s obviously talking about e-learning, but does not see the need to define what it is. So, e-learning has become a common if imprecise term used to refer to technology-enhanced learning.

Will digital natives care?

Probably not a jot.

I’m sure they will still refer to the term, much as we digital immigrants will still differentiate between say “book learning” or “instructor-led” for example, but all our “cool tools” will become just part of the range of media channels available to learners. Naturally, their expectations of learning will be different from those prevalent at the moment, just as one-time learning tools such as audio tapes and 16mm informational films seem terribly quaint now. Similarly, even Generation Xers used electronic calculators in the classroom - using tools like these inevitably shape the expectations of the individuals who interact with these devices.

I think we can expect to see

• Enhanced more immersive Second Life-type personal learning environments
• learning on devices like the Wii (good for those kinaesthetic types)
• learning via ‘personal electronic things’ (PETs)

Instructional Design

I would assert that the fundamentals of instructional design won’t change especially; people still learn in the same way, and as much as technology may change, we as a species are still lumbering around with our hunter-gatherer brains. At this point I should say that Marc Prensky suggests that the new technologies actually lead to physiological changes in the way the brain is ‘hard-wired’ due to the range of stimuli digital natives receive through interacting with new technologies, but there is no evidence to support or refute this, though it is an interesting assessment.

I think that the changes will be more in the area of content authoring and development. If technological progress in learning demonstrates the same vigour as it did during the transition from CBT to e-learning proper, it will be some years before vendors recognise the niche, and there will be a lag before easy-to-use content authoring environments are brought to market - remember how long we had to struggle with Authorware and clunky, inflexible, horrible-to-use proprietary authoring tools, before Captivate and Articulate et al were eventually released?

Having said that, the open-source community are always ahead of the curve in this domain, and there are already some quite user-friendly open source 3-D engines that could form the basis for highly interactive learning environments in a milieu that digital natives are familiar and comfortable with.

…and who knows what else the next decade may bring? If it’s as extraordinary as the last ten years, it’s going to be one fun ride…

References:

Clark, R. C. & Mayer R. (2003) e-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

–