E-learning Curve Blog at Edublogs

In their seminal 2001 white paper Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem, Pat Dillon and Chas Hallet suggest a useful interpretation and use for the traditional learning curve, and introduce their concept of the e-learning curve. They assert that emerging technology has changed the focus of corporate learning systems from task-based, procedural training to knowledge-intensive performance enhancement where learning interventions are broader-based, flexible, and more adaptable to meet the needs the needs of knowledge workers.

In their white paper, they apply the concept of the conventional learning curve to the context of the corporate learning environment in order to supply an appropriate structure for understanding when and how different modalities of learning are used. Within their framework, the conceptualisation of the learning environment consists of systems to manage and support:

1. instructor-led training
2. cohesive team management
3. knowledge generation and sharing
4. performance support
5. content storage and retrieval
6. on-demand learning

In a similar fashion, I have suggested that we can apply Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to a conceptual model of a learning curve (see Figure 1) and begin to investigate how an “e-learning curve” based upon the modalities of that domain would align with the phases of learning in the traditional model.

In my view, a constructivist approach provides the most effective means of enabling adults to learn, particularly in the workplace. In the context of Bruner’s principles of constructivism (see Table 1) technologies like the Internet, websites, and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Jonassen 1992, Driscoll 1994; Schank 1994)

Table 1. Principles of constructivism (Toward a Theory of Instruction, p.225)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviours) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organisations.

More tomorrow, when we apply e-learning modalities to the learning curve.

FÓGRA: Somebody asked me what does “fógra” mean.
Fógra (pron. fowgrah. equal emphasis on both syllables) is the Gaelic Irish word for “Notice.”
_____________________

References:

Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia. IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.
–