A
dialogue motivated by an ibstpi research project
Presidential
Workshop and Panel Session
at the
International Convention
of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)
Orlando,
Florida, October 18-22, 2005
A good student is one
who learns to think with his own head.
Aldo Ciccolini,
Italian-born French pianist
in an interview with Radio France on August 16, 2005
On October 21, 2005 ten people
gathered together at the Coronado Springs Resort in Orlando,
Florida, to hold a six-hour workshop, asking themselves and each
other questions about what should be expected of today's learners
as regards their competencies, attitudes and general disposition.
The results of the workshop session informed a two-hour Presidential
Panel Session the following day. The panel session was open to
all attendees of the . The initiative
to organize this event came in the wake of an ongoing research
project of the to identify and validate online learner competencies.
This Web page served the above
group of ten in their preparation for the workshop and the panel
session. It continues to serve them, and others who joined them,
in following through on the initial dialogue. It is also open
to interested researchers, students and educators in general.
The group is currently working on bringing the results of their
dialogue out in print. After the intended publication will have
become available, this Web page will have become a companion
Web-based document for the print volume.
Correspondence regarding this
Web page should be addressed to [email protected].
The session was inspired by a
research project currently undertaken by the International Board
of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (ibstpi),
which aims at identifying and validating the competencies that
allow today's learners to be successful. Ibstpi has for more
than twenty years been involved in setting the standards for
such fields as instructional design; the management of training;
and instruction. Recently it turned its attention to an often
forgotten actor in the learning environment: the learner, particularly
the online learner. Trying to identify and validate learner competencies,
though, is like aiming at a moving target. Today's learners find
themselves in a learning landscape that is constantly and dramatically
changing in terms of the modalities through which people learn;
the purposes for which they learn; and the context, including
temporal and spatial frames of reference, in which learning acquires
its meaning. Learners are required to look at themselves as lifelong
learners, putting greatly increased emphasis on learner self-efficacy,
both individually and socially. It thus makes sense to ask ourselves
deep questions about the learners, what to expect of them and
how their roles and essential competencies should be defined.
The above concern inspired an
extensive dialogue among ten eminent scholars, researchers, educators,
and students. They included John Bransford (How people learn);
Michael Beaudoin (Is the 'invisible' online student learning
or lurking?) and Jeroen van Merriënboer (Training
complex cognitive skills) in addition to Deb LaPointe and
Yusra Laila Visser, prominent young faculty teaching at the University
of New Mexico and Wayne State University, respectively; Diana
Stirling and Christina Rogoza, two students who entered this
dialogue with a mature high level of conscious appreciation and
analysis of their own learning effort; and Michael Spector, Ileana
de la Teja and Jan Visser, distinguished researchers involved
in the aforementioned ibstpi research project and affiliated,
respectively, with the Florida State University, the Télé-université
Québec, and the Learning Development Institute. The group
collaborated for several months online (as reflected on this
Web page), then met during a six-hour intensive workshop, and
subsequently expanded their dialogue during a two-hour panel
session with some 40+ colleagues during the Annual Convention
of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
held in Orlando, Florida, from October 18 to 22, 2005. The entire
process was facilitated by Jan Visser.
The Presidential Panel
Session on Learners in a Changing Learning Landscape at
the 2005 AECT Convention
As a first step in developing
the dialogue, all ten participants were asked to share with their
colleagues initial questions that could serve as a source of
inspiration not only for their own contribution to the dialogue
but that could equally inspire their colleagues. They were also
asked to provide a brief rationale for their questions. Below
is the tabulated result of this initial exercise, presenting
the questions in the order in which they came in.
#
Author
Question
Underlying thoughts
01
Jan Visser
Is the online learner a distinct
subspecies among the wider species of learners in general?
1) While there are probably
distinct elements that describe the online learner and that suggest
that online learners must possess specific competencies not required
of other learners, I have the suspicion that the more relevant
changes faced by learners in general (whether online, face-to-face,
or in blended situations) are more profound. Thus, too strong
a focus on the online learners may lead attention away from aspects
more deserving of our consideration.
2) Hubert L. Dreyfus argues
in On the Internet (London and New York: Routledge, 2001)
that learning by means of instruction develops according to seven
stages, which he designates using the following descriptors:
Novice; Advanced Beginner; Competence; Proficiency; Expertise;
Mastery; and Practical Wisdom. He reasons that only the first
three stages can adequately develop in the distance education
mode. According to Dreyfus, reaching proficiency and expertise
require “emotional, involved, embodied human beings”
(p. 48), something that he fears the online environment is incapable
of accommodating. Moreover, apprenticeship, which is necessary
for the last two stages, calls for the physical presence of experts
of flesh and blood.
Would we, by focusing on the
online learner, be neglecting important stages in the development
of learning?
02
Jan Visser
What are the key changes that we
notice in today’s learning landscape and how can they be
put into hierarchical order in terms of the importance of challenges
posed to the learner?
These are actually two questions.
They are both related to the previous question. The fact that,
in addition to the various spaces in which people traditionally
used to learn, there is now also an online spatial dimension
to them or, in some cases, a totally autonomous online space,
calls on us to consider if this is a relevant and important dimension
(i.e. the previous question) and what other changes might have
taken place. Where in the hierarchy of important challenges that
face the learner sits the world of online processes? Is it an
undivided world or should it be broken down into distinct aspects?
How do the other changes we notice fit into the picture?
03
Jan Visser
What does learning actually mean?
This may be a question that
we should all ask ourselves upfront, before answering any other
question. Most people, when writing about learning, don’t
care to include somewhere the phrase ‘and by learning I
mean….’ The way we answer the question has to do with
our view of what it means to be human. After all, we are talking
here about human learning, as distinct from animal learning and
machine learning (recognizing, though, that some aspects of human
learning can also be engaged in by animals and machines. Depending
on what aspect of learning we focus, we may arrive at entirely
different answers when trying to identify the competencies of
the learner.
04
Diana Stirling
How does the design of the online
software environment communicate expectations to learners? What
gets communicated?
Basic software design decisions
may have a profound effect on the online learning environment,
and thus, on the online learning experience. The flexibility
of the environment in terms of learner input – not just
in discussion areas, but also with regard to the larger parameters
of how the virtual space is organized – communicates underlying
expectations of learner roles. Is it worthwhile to articulate
these expectations prior to designing the software? Are the instructors,
curriculum designers & software engineers all engaged in
virtual environmental design? Are the issues of learner expectations
in these environments being considered with respect to design
features?
05
Diana Stirling
How does instructor use of online
learning tools (e.g. software environment & its contents,
email, etc.) communicate expectations to learners? What gets
communicated?
These questions have arisen
as a result of my experiences in a summer school term in which
I had two virtual classes. Both classes used the identical virtual
environment, but in very different ways. One instructor was actively
engaged in the online environment from the outset, inviting discussion
by asking questions, participating in (but not dominating) discussion
forums, etc., answering email queries promptly, even letting
students know in advance if he was going to be out of town and
thus unavailable. The other instructor was aloof, neither initiated
nor invited discussion except in a very limited way, etc. These
different experiences in the online environment seem to correlate
with different kinds of in-person classroom experiences –
the difference between an approach that encourages learner participation
through discussion and interaction, and one that is dominated
by instructor lectures. So, this question is related to Jan's
first question – about the roles and expectations of learners
in general.
06
Diana Stirling
What do learners themselves
expect in online environments? What role can/do those expectations
play in the overall online learning experience?
It might be instructive to consider
what learners themselves expect in online environments. Why do
students enroll in such courses? Are their expectations typically
being met? Should they be? Should the expectations of learners
be considered when designing and planning curriculum for such
environments? Do the expectations of learners affect learner
outcomes in terms of academic growth and personal satisfaction?
07
Mike Spector
What makes a good/successful
online course good/successful? Given an answer to that question,
what role do the knowledge, skills and attitudes of online learners
play in success? Which knowledge, skills, and attitudes are particularly
critical to success of individual learners and the overall course?
In "Choruses From the Rock,"
T. S. Eliot says that "the good man is the builder if he
builds what is good." One could likewise say that the good
[online] course is good if the outcomes are good. It also seems
likely that good course experiences often result when there is
a critical mass of learners with certain knowledge, skills and
attitudes, with positive attitudes being perhaps the most important
factor. Wanting to know and believing that one can learn relevant
things if some effort is expended appear critical to success.
08
Mike Spector
What might be different in answering
what makes a good course good with regard to face-to-face and
online courses?
Online courses are often held
to different standards than face-to-face courses. Courses taught
in different settings and formats might well have different standards
appropriate to certain aspects of the course. For example, accessibility
in face-to-face courses might involve things like parking and
ramps for wheelchairs whereas in online courses accessibility
might involve things like Internet connections and screen readers
for the vision impaired. However, when one considers learning
outcomes or improvements in performance and understanding, such
differences in standards are difficult to defend, although many
expect more in terms of improved learning from an online course
than a face-to-face course. That may not be a reasonable expectation.
09
Mike Spector
Many people have claimed that
face-to-face classroom groups have identifiable “personalities”
and further that these might affect which instructional strategies
and activities are likely to be successful. Is this also true
with regard to online courses?
One of the most difficult to
master skills for instructors are facilitation skills. There
is much variability in facilitating discussions due to class
size, subject area, expected learner outcomes, learner prerequisites,
and so on. Many teachers say that they also have to make adjustments
in face-to-face settings due to the overall classroom dynamics
and the behavior of certain individuals (e.g., those who tend
to speak out on every topic as well as those who avoid speaking
at all costs). This may well be true in online settings with
different groups having quite different dynamics.
10
Jeroen van Merriënboer
Shouldn't researchers in the
field of instruction abandon the term on-line learning?
With the upsurge of new Internet
technologies the term "on-line learning" is becoming
an increasingly broad container concept. It refers to studying
text from the computer screen, to answering ready-made questions,
to observing video clips and animations, to being active in asynchronous
and synchronous discussion groups, to having Skype telephone
conversations, to being engaged in highly interactive games and
simulations, to being active in virtual and augmented realities,
and to many more types of learning. Very different-cognitive
and social-learning processes are involved with these different
types of learning. From a research perspective, the term on-line
learning seems to be useless because it does not help to generate
valuable research questions.
11
Jeroen van Merriënboer
Can on-line environments help
to learn complex skills? If so, how?
Recent theories for teaching
complex skills focus on authentic learning tasks that are based
on real-life tasks as the driving force for learning (see Merrill,
M. D. [2002]. First principles of instruction. Education Technology
Research and Development, 50[3], 43-59.). The general
assumption is that such authentic tasks help learners to integrate
the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective
task performance; give them the opportunity to learn to coordinate
constituent skills that make up complex task performance, and
eventually enable them to transfer what is learned to their daily
life or work settings. It is often difficult or even impossible
to implement authentic learning tasks in on-line learning environments.
The main reason to try it anyway has to do with efficiency reasons
(costs) - not with the effectiveness of the instruction.
12
Jeroen van Merriënboer
Do new requirements to on-line
learners merely reflect the weaknesses of on-line learning environments?
A common claim is that on-line
learning environments pose new requirements to learners. This
may be true, but are these new requirements really the result
of a "changing learning landscape" or simply the result
of weaknesses of many on-line environments? Must on-line learners
not be more independent than traditional learners because most
on-line learning environments lack social cohesion? Must on-line
learners not be more self-regulated than traditional learners
because on-line learning environments often provide insufficient
guidance? Must on-line learners not be more motivated than traditional
learners because on-line learning environments often lack motivational
features?
13
Deb LaPointe
Can assumptions about self,
authority, and knowledge develop so that online learners come
to see and know themselves as knowledge constructors? Do online
learners learn to examine their underlying assumptions, reflect
on alternative possibilities, and reframe their worldviews?
Higher education serves many
societal aims. One aim is to help learners construct knowledge
and apply that knowledge to solve problems in various contexts.
To meet that aim, instructors help learners recognize that knowledge
is fluid, always being built upon, and advanced through the efforts
of many, including the efforts of the learners. Additionally,
learners must recognize that complex problems are often solved
with a set of skills that include working with incomplete information,
adapting to changing conditions, managing complexity, and thinking
beyond limiting paradigms in order to create and share knowledge.
Higher education helps learners realize and gain confidence in
their roles as problem solvers and contributors engaged in the
construction and advancement of knowledge.
These aims may be regularly
pursued and attained in the traditional, face-to-face classroom.
What is less certain is whether this aim of higher education
can be attained in the online environment.
14
Deb LaPointe
Are we ready to facilitate learning
for gamers, learners from diverse cultures, and learners recently
returned from Iraq and Afghanistan? Can WE quickly evolve and
change to meet their learning needs? How do we do that?
Are we ready to facilitate learning
for gamers, learners from diverse cultures, and learners recently
returned from Iraq and Afghanistan? Can WE quickly evolve and
change to meet their learning needs? How do we do that?
15
Deb LaPointe
Are we preparing learners for
creative global collaboration? Are we alerting learners to the
fact that learners overseas are highly motivated and working
in gifted communities? Do learners know that other countries
are looking to them to create the next creative wave? Are we
preparing learners to be creative collaborators?
Technology and globalization
are making it possible for individuals as well as countries and
nations to work, collaborate, and compete globally. Jobs that
can be outsourced and activities that can be digitized will be
moved around the world. One of the strengths Americans can contribute
to world collaboration is creativity. As T. L. Friedman mentions
in The World is Flat (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
2005) individuals can and must ask, Where do I fit into the global
competition and opportunities of the day, and how can I, on my
own, collaborate with others globally?
16
Michael Beaudoin
Should the online instructor
be lenient in assessing the invisible learner's minimal participation
in online dialogue if other course requirements are satisfactorily
met?
Questions 16, 17, and 18 are
all related, directly or indirectly, to the phenomenon of the
so-called "invisible" online learner, i.e., the student
who is typically less active in an online course, in the sense
that s/he does not participate as frequently as others in online
dialogue via postings.
The rationale/motivation for
posing these particular questions is that virtually (sorry for
the pun here) every online course includes one or more such learners,
and they can present a special challenge to the distance educator
who wishes to honor differing learning styles while not compromising
the course effectiveness. If we can understand what is going
on with this learner behavior, then we might better adopt instructional
approaches that appropriately accommodate the situation.
17
Michael Beaudoin
Given that online course environments
are generally enhanced by a community of scholars actively contributing
to the course, especially via online discussions, can it be argued
that the invisible learner's behavior is parasitic, in that s/he
constantly takes from, but seldom contributes to, the course?
18
Michael Beaudoin
Is there evidence indicating
that invisible learners, despite their minimal engagement in
online interaction with instructor and peers, actually do learn
and perform on graded assignments as well as or even better than
the more visibly active students?
19
John Bransford
Whether taken online, face-to-face,
or in a blended manner, we all probably agree that people need
to become "lifelong learners". What are some aspects
of lifelong learning that are especially important to make explicit?
Many people seem to assume that
lifelong learning simply involves the addition of new sets of
skills and knowledge to their existing repetoire. But that's
the easy part. True learning often involves the need to unlearn
and"let go" of cherished assumptions and procedures;
to tolerate ambiguity while figuring out new pathways, etc. To
what extent do and can traditional and online learning environments
support both of these dimensions of learning?
20
John Bransford
Can online learning environments
(including blended environments) provide learning opportunities
that are more interesting and productive for learners
than traditional environments?
Often we start with traditional
environments and talk about things lost in online environments
(e.g. everyday face to face interactions). Perhaps online learning
also allows many things to happen that are more difficult to
pull off in traditional environments (record keeping that helps
learners see how their thinking has changed over time, online
assessments that branch people to different areas depending on
their performances; opportunities to reach broader audiences
for advice, etc). What, if any, are some advantages of online
environments that can support learners in ways that are superior
to our traditional approaches?
21
John Bransford
Can online environments appeal
to learners who are active problem posers, leaders and teachers,
or must they be primarily "knowledge dispensing" environments.
Many learning environments (face
to face, online, blended) are primarily knowledge dispensing
and/or skill building environments. A few support problem posing,
leadership and learning by teaching. Assuming that the latter
skills and abilities are important for the twenty first century,
how can we build environments that appeal to people who are more
inquiry and action oriented than "tell me what I need to
know" oriented.
22
John Bransford
Can "online" learning
open up new spaces for learning that are not currently being
utilized?
Time to learn is a limiting
factor for all of us. Lots of learning goes on informally. Can
technology help us utilize informal time to increase learning
opportunities? A simple example involves opportunities to download
audio files onto Ipods and similar devices and listen in the
car, while jogging, etc. What kinds of learners like to take
advantage of these extra opportunities?
23
Ileana de la Teja
What is the role of online learners
in a multi-actor environment?
The definition of learning I
am using is: "A willful, intentional, active, conscious,
constructive, and socially mediated practice that includes reciprocal
intention/action/reflection activities." (Jonassen, D.H.
Learning as Activity. Educational Technology, March-April
2002, p. 45.)
As the learning paradigm shifts
from expert-centered to learner-centered, the learner is asked
to take on more responsibilities and tasks, that were usually
assigned to other actors of the learning environment such as
the instructor, designer, technician and manager. Serving in
multiple roles is becoming common for online learners and challenges
the notion of the learner as an undivided, distinct actor, leading
us to question and re-think the roles of each actor. This question
intent is to discuss the position of online learners in the context
of reciprocal perception of interactions between stakeholders.
24
Ileana de la Teja
What makes a successful online
learner?
Although the importance of designing
online learning environments based on a learner-centered approach
has been emphasized by a number of studies, very little is known
in terms of what makes some online learners more effective than
others. Asking about successful online learners is to question
our expectations from online learners as well as the kind of
skills required for effective online learning.
25
Ileana de la Teja
Are online learners getting
what they want/need?
As online instructors/designers
embrace the learner-centered approach, getting to know the learners'
perspective becomes essential. Some studies have focused on the
learners´ needs in terms of content, learning strategies
and technology. However, I suspect that learners have individual
and social concerns that are poorly known. What are those concerns
and up to what extent is current online learning addressing those
issues?
26
Yusra L. Visser
What is the effect of anonymity
(presence or lack thereof) on the learner, learning, and performance?
In the last two years, I have
taught roughly equal numbers of learners through distance education
and through classroom-based instruction. In my DL classes I have
identified no less than 15 cases of plagiarism and cheating.
No cases of plagiarism and cheating were detected in the classroom-based
classes. I do not believe that DL promotes cheating or plagiarism.
I do believe, however, that DL students are more affected by
anonymity, and that anonymity affects different people in different
ways. For some, the potential for anonymity causes them to seek
out more social and intellectual contact. For others, anonymity
encourages deeper reflection because pressure to keep up with
the “academic Jones’s” is not as strong. And for
some it appears to be the feature that allows them to feel less
worried that an instructor can hang over their desks and peer
into their eyes to detect that they have violated expectations
for fair and ethical practice. What, then, is the effect of anonymity
(not to be confused with isolation) on learning and learners,
and how does this affect our understanding of educational practice
in general?
27
Yusra L. Visser
Some suggest that distance learning
can be a superior method of instruction for supporting the achievement
of certain outcomes. What is the basis of this claim, and how
can the claim be validated?
It has been hypothesized that
online/distance learning allows for a qualitatively different
learning experience than classroom-based instruction, and that
there are things that can be learned online in a more effective
manner than in a classroom-based modality. Perhaps this hypothesis
is a reaction to the pressure from continuous demands for “parity
of esteem” when online and classroom-based instructional
modalities are discussed. Regardless, the hypothesis seems to
be gaining popularity. What is the basis for such a position?
In the absence of empirical research findings to support this
claim, what logically might be considered as examples of knowledge/skills/attitudes
that are potentially better taught through distance modality?
How would one go about determining whether the hypothesis of
superiority of distance learning (or classroom based learning,
for that matter) has merit, and if it does – what the basis
for such merit is?
28
Yusra L. Visser
How do we measure opportunity
costs (from the learner’s vantage point) of different instructional
modalities?
This is perhaps a rather administrative
and bureaucratic question, but I believe it is one that has significant
relevance. In the United States, the practice of adding “convenience”
fees to higher education distance learning courses is gaining
momentum. It is not uncommon for universities to charge anywhere
from $25 to $100 per credit hour for a distance learning course.
These fees are added after the “regular” cost of tuition,
and are thus 1) not covered by tuition waivers/scholarships,
2) not included in the advertised costs for education, and 3)
also included for courses that are exclusively offered in online
modality, and that are required in a student’s program of
study. In other words, an undergraduate education major may expect
to pay $500 for a course, but end up paying $800 for the course,
since she is required to take the core course for graduation,
and the college has decided to offer the course only in online
format. Ethical issues with this practice abound. What is the
basis for the increasingly popular position that online learning
is 1) more convenient for the learner and 2) more expensive for
the institution, and 3) cheaper for the learner, and therefore
justifiably made more expensive? How does the position regarding
convenience fees interact with opportunity costs for learners
completing online degrees? What are the ramifications of these
considerations for public university’s adherence to their
missions?
29
Yusra L. Visser
What really is embodied
learning, and how does it affect the effectiveness of instructional
modalities?
Dreyfus (see Visser, J., above)
makes the interesting argument that there is a “glass ceiling”
imposed by online learning in terms of the novice-expert continuum,
based on the notion that online environments inhibit embodied
learning. Distance education, of course, has a rich history and
extensive scope, going far beyond the online modality. If Dreyfus’
argument holds merit, are “blended” instructional approaches
(e.g. web-enabled courses, interactive radio instruction), less
prone to such restrictions? Can we really argue that embodied
learning is in the dominion of classroom-based instruction more
than in the dominion of online learning, given the often paltry
results for instruction and learning in the world’s poorly
performing brick-and-mortar schools? Is embodiment in learning
perhaps too quickly described as a state of being (i.e. physical)
instead of a state of mind (i.e. experienced)?
30
Christina Rogoza
Does computer based collaborative
learning rest on different epistemological assumptions and therefore,
require the development of new pedagogies?
Some classrooms today reflect
a blend of cognitive and constructivist approaches to teaching
and learning. Best practices in online learning suggest that
good pedagogical strategies employed in the classroom setting
should be duplicated as closely as possible in the online environment
for the students to have an authentic experience. Although technology
and learning management systems have allowed learners to engage
in online discussion and collaborative activities, the online
space essentially remains a repository for content.
31
Christina Rogoza
How is culture mediated in the design and delivery of online
learning?
Online classroom management
systems take a cookie cutter approach to design.
They assume a homogenous audience that can relate to a standard
architecture and visual cues. However, online learners represent
diverse cultural backgrounds with different epistemological roots.
Should and can course management systems be flexibly designed
to accommodate cultural diversity?
32
Christina Rogoza
Can the online learners be oriented
to a disposition that opens up their personal learning space?
With an increasing emphasis
on the use of constructivist pedagogy comes an increasing focus
on how emotions and intentions impact on how learners feel about
learning and how they may want or intend to learn differently.
Does the online learner come to the virtual space with different
affective (emotions, feelings) and conative (desires, intentions)
attributes than the traditional classroom learner? How does the
presence of these intentions and emotions open up the personal
learning space? Can the learner be oriented to these attributes?
From left to right:
Diana Stirling, Michael Beaudoin, Christina Rogoza, John Bransford,
Deb LaPointe, Mike Spector
and Jeroen van Merriënboer
during the six-hour workshop session at the AECT Convention in
Orlando, Florida (October 21, 2005)
Reflective
statements by participanting members
Following the formulation of
the above set of questions, participants in the dialogue were
asked to prepare concise reflective statements/papers concerning
the questions they had earlier raised, using as much as possible
the questions formulated by their colleagues as a source of further
inspiration. The resulting set of reflective statements/papers
is presented below. The collection of these papers formed the
basis for the deliberations during the Orlando workshop, which
in turn inspired the panel session. The papers, like the questions
above, are presented here in the order in which they were submitted.
Reflections on Three
Questions I am Trying to Answer
Deb LaPointe
University of New
Mexico
Received: October
3, 2005
The Background Giving Rise
to My Questions
The questions I posed - (a) Can
assumptions about self, authority, and knowledge develop so that
online learners can come to see and know themselves as knowledge
constructors; (b) Are we ready to facilitate learning
for gamers and learners from diverse cultures and backgrounds;
(c) Are we preparing learners for creative global collaboration
- grow out of a sincere concern to address one question frequently
posed about learning at a distance: Can distance education really
provide a quality learning experience? The question bothers me
for many reasons but mainly because I fear it possibly reflects
a deeply ingrained societal belief that learning can only occur
when the teacher and students are gathered together. Holding
that belief suggests that any learning occurring outside of that
configuration is, by definition, an inferior learning situation.
Besides slighting the field of distance learning, its designers,
and instructors, this attitude carries with it derision for the
learners who take advantage of the ability to learn at a distance
and the quality of the education they receive and can apply.
Abiding by the belief-be it pervasive
or not-that distance education is not as good as face-to-face
learning places many learners at a disadvantage, eliminates learning
opportunities for others, and robs our world of the contributions
made by those whose only chance to learn comes at a distance.
The most viable method to terminate that belief of distance education
as an inferior way to learn is to continue to improve the quality
of the learning experience at a distance. For those reasons,
I ask how do we make distance education better correspond with
the way people learn; how do we make distance education a quality
experience. The answers, in part, require that distance education
design moves beyond single-sensory, autonomous learning through
reading text-based lecture notes and taking online quizzes. I
am searching ways to design learning at a distance that feels
compatible with the way we really learn in a multisensory
world, moving away from the computer for some of the learning
activities, sometimes learning together, sometimes learning alone.
Trying to Educate Myself out
of My Experience
To find answers to my search,
I'm trying to educate myself out of my experiences-the way I
have been taught as well as the way I have been taught to teach,
usually using two senses-hearing and seeing. I'm seeking ways
to facilitate multi-sensory learning, experiential learning that
can lead to transformational learning at a distance. I'm trying
to match media, technologies, interaction, and learning activities
with the attributes of today's learners entering universities
and to facilitate Kolb's (1984) experiential learning cycle at
a distance. And for now, I'm seeking these answers without a
budget for developing virtual environments or computer games.
Why seek multi-sensory experiences
at a distance? The mind ultimately is not and of itself real;
it is made of up of different experiences stimulated by different
phenomena (The Dalai Lama, 2001). Our learning experiences, our
relationships, our quality of life, and our identity depend,
in part, on both what we do, whom we gather with, and how we
experience what we do. Our actions and our perceptions are linked
through real-world objects and experiences that afford a range
of certain possibilities. Learning is experiencing some of the
potential possibilities in the world in new ways, situating the
meaning of words, images, symbols, and artifacts, forming new
associations and patterns of thought, and forming new affiliations
with other people (Gee, 2003). Since our mind is a parallel ensemble
of physiological operations linking the muscular, endocrine,
immune, and nervous systems, it performs several activities at
once, engaging our whole being with movement, feelings, and perceptions
(Bownds, 1999). This ensemble informs our actions; our actions
reciprocally change the environment for others. These ongoing
environmental changes affect our actions in a pattern of learning
with characteristics common of dynamic systems (Yan & Fisher,
2002). Thinking is the activity of deciding what movement to
make next in a given environment with a group of people and tools.
Consequently, thoughts separate from mind, body, and experience
have no relevance to learners.
However, doing is not the end
all and be all. Doing could merely be an automatic reaction to
a stimulus perceived as pain or pleasure. The doing that higher
education seeks to stimulate is an embodied experience in harmony
with what the learner feels, wishes, and thinks, accompanied
by the learner's search for meaning of the experience. When learners
reach that harmony, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) would say there is
flow. When the learner realizes that the meaning he or she takes
away from a setting is but one of many possibilities and cares
about the effect of his or her doing on others residing on the
opposite side of the world, there is significant learning (Fink,
2003), the beginning of transformational learning (Mezirow, 2000).
Today I'm seeking how to facilitate
flow and significant, engaged, transformational learning at a
distance. It is suggested that flow and engaged learning do not
happen at the will of the instructor or designer or even the
learner. Flow and engaged learning happen when learning activities
provide a balance between high challenge and high skills and
allow the learner to focus on clear goals and receive immediate
feedback (Fink, 2003). Flow and engaged learning happen when
learners commit themselves fully to learning in terms of time,
effort, and active participation (Gee, 2003). They happen when
learners are willing to see themselves as the kind of culturally
sensitive person who can learn, use, and value the learning experience
offered, integrating insights gained from multicultural experiences.
The literature suggests that
yesterday's generations of learners dutifully participated in
learning activities with little if any questioning why. Today's
generations of learners, who frequently grew up playing video
and computer games, enter our institutions of higher education
bringing a different identity and thought process. The video
and computer games they have played while growing up and continue
to play today have changed their identity. That identity and
its attributes may be the source of additional ideas on how to
design engaging distance education environments. This new generation
comes to the university as active problem solvers who consult
friends and classmates, seek resources and information, try out
solutions, persist in trying to solve a problem even after making
mistakes, and do not consider mistakes as errors but as opportunities
for reflection and further learning (Gee, 2003; Beck & Wade,
2004). They see themselves as people who learn to experience
the world in new ways and gain the potential to join and collaborate
with a new affinity group, and develop resources for future learning
and problem solving (Gee, 2003). They learn by trial and error;
they operate with less structure.
Learning, therefore, does not
just affect what a learner knows; it can transform how the learner
understands the nature of knowing. While past generations of
learners may have been, in Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and
Tarule's (1986) terms, received or subjective knowers, today's
learners are more likely to be procedural knowers and independent,
critical, creative thinkers who do not just progress sequentially
toward competence. Our learners who do come to us as received
or subjective knowers need to move toward seeing themselves as
independent thinkers and knowers. All learners progress along
a complex web of connections, varying with their experiences,
culture, range of variation in level, and kind of pathway shown
and followed (Yan & Fischer, 2002) as well as their identity
as a learner.
To facilitate engaged learners
in a balance of high competence and high skill, learners need
to not only learn about the domain but also about themselves
and their current and potential capacities. They must learn how
to engage in new action-intellectual, social or physical-and
in new ways of thinking-critical, creative, or practical (Fink,
2003). They must learn how to self-assess and monitor, so they
can continue the learning, enable the flow, and collaborate with
others globally. The distance education environment then needs
to provide the opportunity for learners to repeatedly meet learners
from other cultures, practice, try out, take risks in a place
where real-world consequences are lowered, and reflect. Learners
cannot learn deeply by being told things outside the context
of embodied experiences (Gee, 2003).
Learning builds on previous learning
experiences and knowledge; each learner's experience will be
different as each learner is working from a different set of
motivations, attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts based on previous
experiences. Therefore, the distance education instructor is
not teaching a class; she is teaching individual students (Bain,
2004). The students are not following a uniform learning path
headed sequentially toward competence. Learning is not linear
but filled with stops and starts, reversals and breakthroughs,
success and positive emotions, failures, negative emotions, varying
degrees of scaffolding required, and uncontrolled differences
in social interaction and task requirements (Yan & Fischer,
2002). Each student takes a different pathway from novice to
expert, from received knower to creative, constructed knower.
Each pathway includes differing number of steps, levels of complexity,
sequence of performances, degree and type of social interaction,
and time to complete the task. Each student manifests his or
her own unique unfolding course of activity, and through reflective
abstraction on those experiences; each learner makes judgments
about what has happened. New understanding is constructed from
the integration of the new with prior, existing knowledge. Such
application and generalization are difficult to attain without
the time to experience and process the experience (Gee, 2003).
Therefore, we need to fully immerse the learners in experiences
while trying to eliminate their fear of making a poor grade while
generating a hypothesis, testing out a new idea, and maintaining
a highly challenging environment. Learners need to actively process-design
an experience, consolidate, internalize, and test.
While I have been pondering these
questions, I have been seeking answers through the literature
and using the possibilities I find in the literature to design
my distance education courses. I have been using Kolb's (1984)
experiential learning cycle. Kolb's learning cycle is based as
its name suggests on the learner's experiences. Briefly summarized,
Kolb's learning cycle can be described as follows. The learner
has a concrete experience of some type. That experience becomes
integrated with previous experience through learner reflection.
The learner generates a new abstract idea or hypothesis after
his or her previous experience is reorganized to accommodate
or assimilate the new experience; the learner then devises a
plan for testing the new idea. The new idea is tested through
yet another concrete experience.
As a distance education designer
and instructor, I have been trying to solve the problem of making
distance education a quality learning experience. I have been
trying to match distance education media, technology, and learning
activity to stimulate each phase of Kolb's (1984) learning cycle
as suggested by Zull (2002). I have been trying to determine
when the learners need to come together to stimulate learning
and when they need to work independently. I have initially assigned
synchronous voice discussions as one way of testing out new ideas
and asynchronous text-based private journals for the reflection/integration
stage . . . based on how I reflect and integrate through thinking
and writing alone. After first implementing this design, I asked
for feedback. The first comment I received from a learner was
I reflect and integrate aloud when participating in class
discussions and feel stifled having to reflect alone through
a private journal. Now I am back to the drawing board . .
. after testing out my new hypothesis and getting feedback. My
recent experience, however, renews my interest in using problems
and Kolb's experiential learning cycle to stimulate significant,
engaged, caring learning through experience.
Conclusion
I hope distance education can overcome the stigma that some people
still hold. I hope that we can reduce the uncertainty about learning
at a distance that society, perspective students and parents,
and employers may hold. I hope that we will soon hear that many
view the distance education environment as a place where significant,
engaged, transformational learning occurs, where personal connections
with other learners across the globe are made, and those experiences
with others develop caring, culturally sensitive global learners.
I hope those experiences are the start of learners' identities
as people who are highly motivated to work creatively and collaboratively
at a global level.
Bibliography
Bain, K. (2004). What the
Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Beck, J. C. & Wade, M. (2004). Got Game: How the Gamer
Generation is Reshaping Business Forever. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M, Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule,
J. M. (1986). Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of
Self, Voice, and Mind. United States of America: Basic Books.
Bownds, M. D. (1999). The Biology of the Minds: Origins and
Structures of Mind, Brain, and Consciousness. Bethesda, MD:
Fitzgerald Science Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal
Experience. New York, NY: Harper-Collins.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About
Learning and Literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the
Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives
on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The Dalai Lama (2001). An Open Heart: Practicing Compassion
in Everyday Life. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Yan, Z. & Fischer, K. (2002). Always under construction:
dynamic variations in adult cognitive microdevelopment. Human
Development, 45, 141-160.
Zull, J. E. (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain. Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Reflections on My
Questions for the AECT 2005 Presidential Panel
J. Michael Spector
Florida State University
Received: October
5, 2005
My three questions were about
online courses: (1) What makes a good online course good? (2)
Do those things differ from what makes good face-to-face courses
good? and, (3) Do online courses develop "personalities"
that might influence the selection and use of effective strategies
and activities? Those questions came to mind partly as a result
of my work for the International Board of Standards for Training,
Performance, and Instruction (ibstpi) in the last nine years
concerned with competencies for instructional designers, especially
those designing technology intensive learning environments, and
more recently competencies for online instructors and learners.
These questions also arose in conjunction with online master's
programs in instructional design and technology at Syracuse University
and at Florida State University.
The chance to work with ibstpi
colleagues in identifying relevant knowledge, skills, attitudes
and values that pertain to online learning and instruction was
enriching. We examined research, talked with many experienced
practitioners, conducted interviews and surveys, and shared our
own experiences. I worked with a doctoral student who conducted
a qualitative investigation of the practices, perceptions, and
approaches of highly experienced online teachers. We investigated;
we discussed; we published papers and books - that on which academics
thrive.
My experience with regard to
the university programs was quite different. In both cases the
faculty involved with developing and implementing these programs
were enthusiastic and very knowledgeable. However, there was
noticeable resistance from those not involved with online learning
and instruction - especially in departments that did not make
use of online learning in any of its many forms. Skepticism is
fine; entrenched and dogmatic resistance is downright discouraging,
especially from highly educated colleagues and administrators.
In any case, that context caused
me to focus on those three questions. There is a thread running
through my questions that suggests that online courses may have
many significant things in common with face-to-face courses.
As researchers, we have tended to focus more on the differences.
That thread of similarity perhaps developed as a practical way
to respond to those who regard online teaching as an alien ritual
performed by people wearing masks. There is a complementary thread
that pertains to quality. Like many others, I would like to do
what I do well - at least every now and again. Satisfying that
occasional desire for quality requires understanding what is
likely to contribute to quality - not only from my perspective
but from the perspective of students and those who may employ
or work with my students afterwards.
The latter question is really
a question of conscience. Stated simply, it comes to this: What
good will come from what I am now doing and likely to do tomorrow?
After tripping over this question while wondering about in academic
darkness, I have come to this conclusion: I do not know. Not
only do I not know what good will come from what I am doing,
I do not know in general what will result from what I am doing.
Ouch. The truth bites.
I do have an underlying belief,
however, that I am willing to share. In Plato's Protagoras, Socrates
and Protagoras are discussing virtue. Socrates proposes and apparently
convinces Protagoras that if one knows what the right thing to
do is in a particular situation, then one is compelled to do
it; failure to do what is right implies ignorance. The paradox
is interesting in its own right, but my concern here is somewhat
different. For Socrates, the indication of understanding virtue
was based entirely on action or performance. Socrates perhaps
introduced the first performance-based criterion for understanding.
There is also an implication that there may be a difference between
what one says and what one does. Saying the right thing, at least
in the cases Socrates considered (most of which involved values
and virtue), is not a sufficient indication of understanding;
one must also do what is right. In the words of my philosopher
professor, O. K. Bouwsma: "Surely your life will show what
you think of yourself."
That trip down memory lane may
raise all sorts of other issues, such as the nature of values
or the value of nature. I only wanted to suggest the general
principle that performance is a reliable indication of knowledge
in complex problem-solving domains. In order to determine how
good any intentional learning situation is, online or otherwise,
one might examine performance on representative problems in that
domain. Performance is not the only indicator of learning. Learning
is a process that occurs over time. Evidence suggests that sustained
periods of focused and reflective practice result in improved
performance. This would imply that another indication that learning
is occurring might be commitment or motivation to continue. While
the first measure might be characterized as the hitting-the-target
measure, the latter measure might be characterized as the stickiness
(stick-to-it) measure. Learning is a sticky business. And academics
love to make a mess - this one at least.
Learners in a Changing
Learning Landscape: New Roles and Expectations - One Learner's
Reflections
Diana Stirling
Received: October
5, 2005
Introduction
I'd like to start my reflections
by considering a question posed by our facilitator, Dr. Jan Visser:
Is the online learner a distinct subspecies among the wider
species of learners in general?
Perhaps the online learning environment
brings out different aspects of a learner than in-person classroom
environments do. There is evidence from psychology that people
behave differently in different situations based on the roles
and/or expectations assigned to them. Might this apply to online
learners as well? If so, then learner expectations may be important
to declare explicitly in the online environment. This leads to
further questions about expectations in in-person learning environments
and how those get communicated as compared with expectations
in online learning environments.
This, in turn, brings to mind
some ideas presented in Edward T. Hall's book Beyond Culture
in which he discusses some differences between what he calls
high-context and low-context communications (1976,
p.91-93). Here's how Hall explains these differences.
A high-context (HC) communication
or message is one in which most of the information is either
in the physical context or internalized in the person, while
very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the
message. A low-context (LC) communication is just the opposite;
i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code.
(p.91)
It seems worth examining what
might be happening in online learning environments in terms of
these ideas of context. If messages are not explicit, might the
learners look for or respond to implicit messages conveyed by
the software design and its use by the instructor? If so, what
might be being communicated via these interactions?
My questions for the workshop
are centered on these very issues. They are:
How does the design of the
online software environment communicate expectations to learners?
What gets communicated?
How does instructor use of
online learning tools (e.g. the software environment and its
contents) communicate expectations to learners? What gets communicated?
What do learners themselves
expect in online environments? What role can/do those expectations
play in the overall online learning experience?
I'd like to address these questions
in turn, always keeping in mind Hall's framework for understanding
communications in terms of context.
Software As Context
Basic software design decisions
may have a profound effect on the online learning environment,
and thus, on the online learning experience. The flexibility
of the environment in terms of learner input and collaboration
- not just in discussion areas, but also with regard to the larger
parameters of how the virtual space is organized - communicates
underlying expectations of learner roles. Is it worthwhile to
articulate these expectations prior to designing the software?
Are instructors, students, curriculum designers, and software
engineers all involved in the process of virtual environmental
design? Are the issues of learner expectations in these environments
being considered with respect to design features? And finally,
is there an examination of the underlying philosophies and educational
approaches that are implicitly embodied in the design of virtual
learning environments?
My experience in online learning
is limited to graduate studies. The program in which I am currently
enrolled uses the D2L learning environment. This environment
(at least as I've experienced it) includes the following areas
or sections for each course: Course Home (with an area for posting
news, links to Events - which are typically assignments, Personal
Preferences, Personal Homepage, Personal Profile, Personal Schedule
and Bookmarks), Chat, Checklist, Classlist, Content, Discussions,
Dropbox, FAQ, Glossary, Grades, Journal, Quizzes, and Survey.
Not all of these features appear for every class, the choice
being apparently made by the instructor. In addition, each student
has an overall Home section in which all of the online courses
in which she is enrolled are listed, a central Email location
to which all D2L email messages are sent, and a Locker, as well
as a link to a Help page.
The student has input to Personal
Preferences, which determine the characteristics of the display,
and the Personal Profile, which is a form that the student may
elect to complete in order to provide other students with information
about herself. The student may also elect to upload files to
the Locker section and may choose to keep an online Journal.
The Schedule automatically enters due dates if they have been
added by the instructor for a particular class, but does not
consolidate the due dates for all the classes in which a student
is currently enrolled. This can be done manually by the student,
however.
The main point I'd like to make
here is that all the rest of the sections, i.e., those that concern
the substance of the course: Content, Discussion areas, Checklists,
and etc. are entirely controlled by the instructor. Only the
instructor can post discussion topics, establish permanent chat
groups, set up surveys, make entries into a glossary or FAQ section,
and so on. The instructor is always firmly and unequivocally
in control of the community learning space.
What does such a context convey
to the learners in terms of expectations? That depends, in part,
on how the instructor uses the environment. Which leads to the
next set of questions.
Instructor Use of the Online
Environment
How does instructor use of
online learning tools (e.g. the software environment and its
contents) communicate expectations to learners? What gets communicated?
Taking into consideration that
only instructors can set up discussion areas, some go one step
further and set limitations on how many or how few contributions
must be posted per student. One instructor of a class in which
I'm currently enrolled restricts posts to one per week per student.
She posts a question and each student must post one answer in
response. These responses are then graded by her. Each week a
new question is posted by her. Such a situation makes conversation
among students in the discussion area impossible. Every post
is specifically directed toward the instructor.
In another class, the instructor
does not limit the number of posts per student, nor does he require
a particular minimum. He posts a question based on the lecture
or reading and the students are meant to post responses. In some
cases, I have wanted to discuss a different point of the lecture
or readings in addition to the one that is posted, so have written
asking him to open a general discussion area for the readings/lecture
of that week. He has responded saying that he didn't want to
do that because he didn't want the discussion to become "confusing."
What kinds of messages are being
conveyed by these uses of the software environment? Rather than
making an attempt to broaden the parameters imposed by the software,
these instructors limit them further. In this way, student interactions
with one another are restricted. It is difficult to create a
sense of a learning community within such restrictions. In the
first instance, the social aspects of learning are all but ignored.
In the second instance, while social learning interactions are
enabled, construction of learning by individuals and groups is
unnecessarily limited.
In combination, the software
design and its use by instructors convey implicit messages to
learners about their roles in the virtual environment. It is
worth examining these in light of assumptions about: the capabilities
of graduate students, what kinds of learning experiences are
desirable in terms of preparation for further study and professional
work, and the underlying purposes and processes of learning in
general. An examination of the explicit messages being conveyed
merits consideration as well.
Learners' Expectations
It is hard to generalize about
what expectations learners bring to the online learning environment.
As Deb LaPointe describes in her contribution to these proceedings,
every learner brings a complex combination of "motivations,
attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts based on previous experiences"
(10) to the online environment. I would add that these components
are in a constant state of flux. Even the online learning experience
itself contributes to learners' internal revisions. These various
components contribute to the expectations of the learners at
the outset and as the online learning experience progresses.
Can these expectations be
made explicit? Should they be? If so, how?
Sometimes one's expectations
aren't consciously known even to oneself until they are contradicted.
Anyone who has traveled or lived in a culture much different
than the one in which she typically operates has experienced
the clash and confusion caused by expectations that prove to
be problematic in new or unfamiliar circumstances. Even in these
situations, it can be hard to identify and articulate precisely
where the problem lies. Could this be analogous to the situation
encountered by learners (and possibly teachers) in online environments?
If so, and if making expectations explicit is considered important,
then how to facilitate the process of identifying and expressing
them online also bears consideration.
Whether or not learner expectations
are important may depend on the goals of the online program.
If the goal is to provide step-by-step instruction for a specific
task, or to provide data for memorization so that the learner
can pass a multiple-choice exam, then the issue of learner expectations
may be insignificant. If the goals of the program are more far-reaching
and include providing qualitative as well as quantitative learning
environments and experiences, then the issue of learner expectations
becomes quite significant.
Online Learning Environments:
High-context or Low-context?
I'd like to clarify that Hall's
concept of high- and low-context communications is expressed
as a continuum rather than as a dichotomy (p. 91). He explains
his idea in terms of cultures, but for this discussion I'd like
to apply the concept to situations within cultures and then to
online learning environments.
Imagine that you are with a group
of your longtime friends and you are relaxing together, maybe
at a party. And further, imagine that you have brought along
a new friend who is unknown to the group. Typically there will
be lots of phrases and innuendos in the conversation that will
be undecipherable to the newcomer. The group of friends together
engages in high-context communications, the context having been
built up over time by mutual experience and understanding with
which the newcomer is unfamiliar. In order to be included, you
will have to explicitly explain to the newcomer the details that
are encoded in the communications between your longtime friends.
I'd like to suggest that many
online learning environments are necessarily low-context, particularly
those that are entirely text-based, and that some of the problems
encountered in these environments have to do with a lack of explicit
communication. The participants in online classes may live in
different parts of the world and be from different cultural backgrounds.
They may never have an opportunity to meet in person. Further
complications can arise when teachers and learners come from
cultures with different context densities. These factors all
contribute to the need for communication to be made explicit.
In the absence of explicit communication, individuals in online
environments attempt to interpret communications in terms of
their own previous experiences, which may or may not lead to
misunderstandings. Naturally, these kinds of interpretations
occur in all kinds of environments, including in-person classes,
but in computer mediated learning situations, they may be all
the student has to use as a guide. Lacking the visual and kinesthetic
cues that are present in in-person learning situations can also
contribute to the potential for misunderstanding. The lag time
between recognizing and correcting misunderstandings in online
environments seems to be longer than in in-person situations
as well, due to limitations in the communication capabilities
inherent in much of the software. If video conferencing is a
part of the online environment, the potential for this kind of
misunderstanding and the lag time needed to clarify messages
might be reduced.
It seems possible that if a group
of learners were to interact in an online learning environment
consistently over time, the potential for moving the context
toward greater density would exist. That increase in context
density might result from the cumulative communications and shared
experiences of the participants.
Virtual Environmental Design
for Learning Communities
My experience with the D2L learning
environment is that it is not conducive to student-centered or
constructivist approaches. Exclusive instructor control is inherent
in its design. It essentially supports the traditional lecture
approach: the instructor talks and students listen, contributing
only when they have permission from the instructor to do so.
It would be awkward and cumbersome to use such an environment
as the context for the co-creation of a learning community by
its members.
But D2L and the other software
products in the same category are not the only options. I have
spent quite a bit of time considering questions like the one
John Bransford proposed for this meeting, i.e., "How can
we build environments that appeal to people who are more inquiry
and action oriented than "tell me what I need to know"
oriented?" I have also been influenced by questions Jan
Visser has posed in our conversations about learning communities.
From these conversations I've been inspired to wonder how an
environment can facilitate the emergence of supportive, interactive,
inclusive communities of learning.
If one were to start with the
assumption that such communities are desirable and such environments
ought to be created, what features would these environments have?
There are so many possibilities that might work. Ideally, the
environment would be designed by the learning community itself.
However, this could be a kind of chicken-and-egg problem because
it might be necessary to create the virtual space in order for
the learning community to coalesce. So, for the sake of this
discussion, imagine the task of designing such an online learning
environment has been given to us.
Here are some of the features
I would suggest:
Flexibility - the environment should not only have
the capacity for a variety of features, such as the addition
of hyperlinks, audio and video clips, Web conferencing, games,
etc., but the overall organization of the environment should
lend itself to change as the community's needs evolve. In addition,
the environment ought to support flexibility in the roles participants
play.
Accessibility - naturally, the environment needs to
be accessible to the community it serves
Distributed Control - every participant ought to have the
ability to contribute to and change the environment as s/he deems
appropriate; thereby, all participants can share in the responsibility
for the success (by whatever measures are valued by the participants)
of the community (Wikipedia is an example of an environment with
this feature.)
Navigability - the environment ought to be easy to
navigate, and support searching and finding
Reliability -the environment ought to be technically
reliable
There are innovators working
on questions similar to these. One example is Chide Groenouwe's
group in The Netherlands. Their project, Network Universalis
(),
provides an environment in which the roles of teacher and learner
are interchangeable and contributions are made and interconnected
in ways determined by the participants as the process unfolds.
Closing Thoughts
In an environment such as the
one I've described in the previous section, expectations of learners
would surely be different than the expectations supported by
environments like D2L. In framing our questions about learner
expectations, which environment(s) should we consider? This brings
me back to Jan Visser's question at the beginning of this paper,
about whether the online learner should be considered a subspecies
of the broader category of learners in general. Maybe instead
of trying to distinguish types of learners, it would be more
productive to examine learning environments and the implicit
and explicit expectations they can reasonably support.
Resources
Bransford, J. (2005). Questions
formulated by participating members. Retrieved 10/4/2005
from http://www.learndev.org/ibstpi-AECT2005.html
Groenouwe, C. Network Universalis ().
Contact: [email protected] , +315987449, Free University Amsterdam,
Room R-261, De Boelelaan 1081- 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam
Hall, Edward T. (1976). Beyond culture. NY: Doubleday.
LaPointe, D. (2005). Reflections on three questions I am trying
to answer. Retrieved 10/4/2005 from http://www.learndev.org/ibstpi-AECT2005.html#anchor1673958
Visser, J. (2005). Questions formulated by participating members.
Retrieved 10/4/2005 from http://www.learndev.org/ibstpi-AECT2005.html
One can't help being influenced
by one's own experiences when thinking about what it means to
be a learner, what learning entails and how it impacts people.
So many things we learn throughout life and in so many ways do
we profoundly change, thanks to our ability to learn, as we grow
older. The diversity of who we are and the different circumstances
in which we find ourselves can't but produce a rich variety of
ways in which we attribute meaning to the experience of learning.
I spent a significant portion
of my younger years becoming a physicist, going through formal
university training; learnt making documentary films entirely
on my own through extensive reading and experimenting with film
equipment; became effectively conversant with the Spanish language
using a self-instructional book with accompanying audio recordings;
failed on various occasions when I tried to do the same for Arabic
but finally succeeded when the opportunity arose to take face-to-face
classes; learnt to play the piano since the age of eight and
am still learning, either by taking the occasional lesson or
by trying things out for myself, carefully listening to the performances
by others; familiarized myself in my late forties and fifties
with the instructional design field, again using the formal setting
of a university but this time only after serious negotiation
about how I would use that environment; and learnt to construct
complicated musical instruments, having acquired basic woodworking
skills as a child while watching my father using his hands in
applying those skills--as well as other skills that I still had
to learn--following detailed written guidance. Besides the above
more obvious instances of learning, I learnt numerous other things,
such as overcoming shyness, accepting tragic and irreversible
loss, and interacting gently with most of those I meet, none
of which were ever taught to me in any formal way or setting.
I had to find out for myself, interacting with those whose advice
I chose to accept and whose model I wanted to follow. Learning,
in each person's life, is extremely varied and it often remains
a mystery what suddenly seems to turn the switch between being
an apprentice and the master of one's abilities.
While I learnt many component
skills, such as solving second-order partial differential equations;
planing a piece of wood; editing a sequence of film shots; or
presenting an argument in written form, those are not the things
I feel added real value to my life. Without the more comprehensive
perspectives of becoming a theoretical physicist, able to contribute
to my field of interest; building musical instruments that I
or other people would want to play; producing a documentary movie
on an issue I felt passionate about; or being a contributing
intellectual, none of the above skills, however competent I might
have become in performing them, would have meant much to me.
Thus, my perspective on learning
is one that is in the first place determined by awareness of
the various comprehensive roles we wish to play in life. We want
to be a good parent, a skillful carpenter, an effective teacher,
a creative physicist, or a performing pianist who thinks with
his own head rather than imitating someone else's performance.
A Matter of Definition
In answering a number of the
questions posed in this dialogue, I am turned in the first place
to those I raised myself (Questions 1 to 3). I proposed the third
of these questions as one that should be dealt with before any
other one. It asks: "What does learning actually mean?"
and suggests that a response to it has something to do with "our
view of what it means to be human" (J. Visser, in this dialogue).
I usually express my view of
what it means to be human in materialistic terms. My down-to-earth
view of members of the human species is that they are nothing
more but also nothing less than pieces of organized matter--just
the same as rocks, plants, and other animals. What makes them
special and somehow unique is the fact that, in the course of
evolution, humans became endowed with the faculty of consciousness,
the ability to reflect on their actions, to hold things in mind
and contemplate them, carrying out thought experiments, and to
foresee, to an extent, the consequences of what they intend to
do. What exactly consciousness is; to what extent some form of
it might be present in other species or be an exclusive feature
of humans; what allowed it to emerge; and what are the neuronal
correlates of consciousness are questions in which only recently
some tentative insights have started to develop (e.g., Edelman
and Tononi, 2000; Carter, 2002; Greenfield, 2002; Edelman, 2004;
Koch, 2004; Koch 2005; Steinberg, 2005).
Consciousness allows us to experience
joy and sorrow as we transit through life. It is the cause of
the eternal amazement with which we stand, generation after generation,
in awe of who we are, where we come from, what we are here for,
and where we are going. It is at the origin of our sense of belonging,
of being part of a larger whole, an experience to which we give
expression in religious beliefs, mythologies, evolving world
views based on the methodical and disciplined pursuit of scientific
insight, and great works of art.
Within the above perspective,
being human means having the unique faculty of participating
consciously--for a brief moment--in the evolution of the universe.
This is both an outrageous claim and a call to humility.
If one accepts the above vision
of being human, then learning must be conceived of in a similarly
broad perspective of purposeful interaction with an environment
to whose constant change we must adapt while being ourselves
the conscious participants in creating it. 'Constructive interaction
with change' thus ought to feature prominently in a definition
of human learning at this level, expressing what ultimately learning
is all about. Besides, it should be recognized that not only
individual human beings partake in such constructive conscious
interaction with change, but that the same behavior equally applies
to larger social entities at a variety of levels of complex organization.
Moreover, learning as conceived in this perspective is intimately
interwoven with being alive. It is therefore not something one
engages in every now and then, but rather a lifelong disposition.
Finally, the disposition referred to in the last sentence is
characterized by openness towards dialogue. Hence, I define human
learning as "the disposition of human beings, and of the
social entities to which they pertain, to engage in continuous
dialogue with the human, social, biological and physical environment,
so as to generate intelligent behavior to interact constructively
with change" (J. Visser, 2001). When I first proposed this
definition, I called it an 'undefinition,' referring to its intended
purpose to remove the boundaries from around the current, too
narrowly conceived, definitions of learning.
Four Levels of Learning
The above definition of learning
applies at the most comprehensive level of being human, the level
at which we are most distinctively different from anything else
that learns, such as non-human animals or machines. Nonetheless,
it should be recognized that human adaptive behavior, and thus
learning, occurs at least at the following four levels of organizational
complexity, some of which we share with other organisms (J. Visser,
2002, n.p.):
Level 1: Interaction with threats and opportunities in
the environment through genetically transmitted preprogrammed
responses, e.g. fight and flight responses. Level 2: Acquisition of essential environment-specific
abilities, such as mastery of the mother tongue, driven by an
inherited predisposition to do so. Level 3: Deliberate acquisition of specific skills, knowledge,
habits and propensities, motivated by individual choices or societal
expectations, usually by exposing oneself to a purposely designed
instructional--or self-instructional--process. Level 4: The development and maintenance of a lifelong
disposition to dialogue with one's environment for the purpose
of constructively interacting with change in that environment.
It can be argued that the above
four levels of learning-related adaptive behavior in humans "represent
a progression of increasingly higher levels of consciousness
about one's role in life and in the world" and that "the
four levels are not entirely distinct from each other" (n.p.).
In fact, they may interact.
Not everyone is happy with a
comprehensive definition like the one referred to above because
it is difficult to use in the operational context of intentionally
designed instruction. Besides, it may be seen to stress the obvious
(see for a brief polemic on this issue the exchange between Chadwick,
2002, and J. Visser & Y. L. Visser, 2003). Most common definitions
of human learning contemplate adaptive behavior at Level 3. There
is nothing wrong, at least not in principle, with defining learning
more restrictively--as is often done (see e.g. Jonassen's [2002]
definition referred to in connection with Question 23 in this
dialogue)--than my own comprehensive definition. It would be
wrong, though, to do so without having in mind that one is dealing
with only a segment of what it means to be learning. However
important that segment may be at a practical level of intentional
intervention in changing human performance capability to serve
accepted societal goals--these days usually related to the interests
of the prevailing economic model--by closing one's eyes to human
functioning at a higher level of consciousness one is at risk
of developing human beings who increasingly lose the capacity
to intervene in ever more complex situations at a time when the
major problems the world faces are exactly situated at such a
higher level of complexity.
Thus, in view of the above rationale,
I should like to argue that, at whatever level we interact with
the development of human learning in our fellow citizens, we
should always do so within the perspective of the highest level
of complexity within which we expect people to be able to operate.
Against the backdrop of that argument it is sad to observe how
increasingly formal education, up to the highest level, is being
dealt with as if it were a mere commodity (see for arguments
in favor of this position Daniel, 2002, and Daniel, 2003, and
for opposing arguments Jain et al., 2003).
Is There Such a Thing as an
Online Learner?
I raised the question (Question
1), "Is the online learner a distinct subspecies among the
wider species of learners in general?" (J. Visser, in this
dialogue). The underlying thoughts that accompanied my question,
particularly the reference to Dreyfus's (2001) claim that the
online environment is incapable of accommodating "emotional,
involved, embodied human beings" (p. 48) in ways that allow
those who learn to reach proficiency and expertise, triggered
off another question (Question 29), "What really is embodied
learning, and how does it affect the effectiveness of instructional
modalities?" (Y. L. Visser, in this dialogue). Stirling
(in this dialogue) draws attention in Questions 4, 5 and 6 to
the expectations created in learners due to their participation
in online learning environments whose features, and ways in which
those features are being used, affect the learners. In Question
8, Spector (in this dialogue) also refers to learner expectations,
suggesting that "many expect more in terms of improved learning
from an online course than a face-to-face course." I doubt
whether this is indeed the case, but agree with both Stirling
and Spector that it is reasonable to assume that the environment
in which one learns creates expectations--perhaps not only in
the learners, but also in those who facilitate the learning--that
are determined, at least in part, by the characteristics of that
environment. Merriënboer in this dialogue (Question 10)
suggests that the entire concept 'online' may just be too broad
to be useful to generate specific research questions. This suggestion,
on the one hand, underlines that the environment is a likely
factor (or set of factors) of influence but, on the other hand,
it also points to the need to become more specific in describing
the various defining characteristics of learning environments.
I would argue, in that case, that such a differentiated approach
in referring to the learning environment is similarly relevant
in the case of online, face-to-face and hybrid learning settings.
Nonetheless, the online learning
environment has its own specificities. For instance, it is able
to facilitate kinds of learning, such as through global collaboration
and online gaming (LaPointe's Questions 14 and 15 in this dialogue)
and allows kinds of learner behavior, such as 'invisible' and
anonymous participation (Beaudoin's Questions 16-18 and Y. L.
Visser's Question 26 in this dialogue) that are far less likely
to occur in traditional settings. Besides, there are technical
possibilities in the online environment that potentially allow
new learning spaces to be opened up (see e.g. Bransford's Question
22 in this dialogue) that may less easily come to mind to learners
whose sole perspective is that of the face-to-face context. On
the other hand, Rogoza's Question 30 (in this dialogue) highlights
the fact that, whatever the potentiality of the online environment,
the reality often remains below what is potentially possible.
Besides, as suggested by Question 26 (Y. L. Visser, in this dialogue),
this same environment may be responsible for generating in students
a number of unintended and undesired behaviors that detract from
reaching online learning's full potential.
I am not aware, when in the 15th
century the printing press was invented and print materials came
into wide use among the general public, that it resulted in the
emergence of p-learning and p-learners. When Jan Amos Comenius
published his Orbis Sensualium Pictus in 1658, calling attention,
by doing so, to the importance of appealing to learners' senses
by including visual illustrations in instructional text rather
than capitalizing on their ability to memorize, it didn't result
in isolating i-learning as a particular kind of learning, nor
did the advent of instructional radio lead to r-learning or that
of instructional use of TV to t-learning. Against the backdrop
of a centuries old history of the use of media in education,
there seems little logic in the current tendency to reserve a
special place for such things as e-learning and m-learning for
those instructional practices that involve the use of electronic
communication via computer networking and handheld mobile devices,
respectively.
The beauty of learners is that
they are, well . . . learners. They come to the world hardwired
to explore their environment (Gopnik, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 1999).
They create their own path through life while moving along, together
with their fellow learners. Faced with different opportunities
in which particular modalities--such as face-to-face instruction
or education at a distance via a variety of media--may be dominantly
available, good learners, those that have not been told that
there is only one way in which to learn, will find their way
not just by exploring the initially chosen option but equally
by accessing multiple additional opportunities beyond the given
one. Defining someone as an e-learner or distance learner, even
within the context of a particular instructional context, is
tantamount to discouraging such a person from engaging in such
wider explorations.
Thinking back of the learning
experience I know best, my own, I'm pretty confident that I would
never have learnt Arabic had I stuck to the idea that I should
meet this challenge through self-instruction; I would not have
become a competent musical instrument builder had I limited myself
to merely following the guidelines of the harpsichord building
manual that I had at my disposal and had I not sought further
advice from other builders and craftsmen and experimented with
several techniques of my own invention; I would not have deepened
my understanding of physics had I not supplemented an already
excellent university program with weekly discussion and work
sessions with a fellow student and friend who had similar interests
and had I not explored what was on offer at other universities
and in related fields; and, finally, my personality would have
remained underdeveloped had I not been able to find my ways in
the school of life and become increasingly better at feeling
comfortable with who I am and at ease with the limitations of
my being.
Obviously, one shouldn't generalize
from the above (biased) sample-of-one. However, I would not have
brought up my personal experience if it had not been largely
convergent with the findings of an analysis of the stories of
the lifetime learning experience of hundreds of people from around
the world (Y. L. Visser, J. Visser, 2000, October; J. Visser,
Y. L. Visser, Amirault, Genge, & Miller, 2002, April; M.
Visser, & J. Visser, 2003), covering a spectrum ranging from
illiterate Aymara farmers in rural Bolivia to academics in Europe
and the USA of different ages. That research, which started accidentally
at another annual convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (J. Visser, Berg, Burnett, &
Y. L. Visser, 2000, February), shows a similar propensity in
those whose learning stories were collected to situate themselves
as learners in environments that include a wide choice of learning
spaces beyond those formally designed for specific instructional
purposes. The learning human being wanders among those various
spaces and should be encouraged to do so. Part of the work that
schools could usefully undertake would be to make their students
aware of and conversant with that wide range of learning spaces
to which they potentially have access.
It will be clear from the above
that my answer to the question if online learners should be considered
a subspecies among learners in general is a clear NO. 'Online
learner' is at best an unhelpful concept and, as said, its use
could encourage learners to adopt too narrow a mindset in considering
their options.
There Are No Online Learners,
but Learners Do Go Online
Some learners spend most of their
learning time offline and will occasionally complement their
learning effort through online explorations. Other learners may,
in a particular context, primarily be driven by instructional
events afforded to them online, but they will undertake additional
offline explorations as well. Yet others will have opted initially
for a hybrid learning environment, including both online and
offline experiences, but they would still venture beyond what
is given to them, offline as well as online. The crux is that
intelligent learners, whatever their initial entry point into
a particular learning effort, will continue to look around them,
driven by their natural curiosity, to further enrich their learning
experience both online and offline, in any way they consider
useful, through all means at their disposal. I recognize that
the above point of view clashes with some of the original core
assumptions of the instructional design field. I am equally aware,
though, that, over time, the field has grown to become more open
to alternative views that attribute greater importance to the
autonomous role played by the learner. Such an alternative perspective
is relevant and important considering that change in human behavior
is not merely a goal in the context of predetermined social or
economic processes--such as to serve corporate interests--but
may often relate to human needs and desires in much more complex,
non-linear, ways, based on the long-term intricate interrelatedness
of individual, communal and societal interests.
Dreyfus (2001) argues that learning
by means of instruction develops according to the following seven
stages: Novice; Advanced Beginner; Competence; Proficiency; Expertise;
Mastery; and Practical Wisdom. He reasons that only the first
three stages can adequately develop in the distance education
mode. According to Dreyfus, reaching proficiency and expertise
require "emotional, involved, embodied human beings"
(p. 48), something that he fears the online environment is incapable
of accommodating. Moreover, apprenticeship, which is necessary
for the last two stages, calls for the physical presence of experts
of flesh and blood.
I find Dreyfus's (2001) seven-stage
analysis of the learning-through-instruction process relevant
and useful. I also agree with him that emotional embodied involvement
on the part of both learners and those who help learners to learn
is crucial in the instructional context, particularly if the
learning effort is directed at reaching more than mere competence.
However, Dreyfus's conclusion that such emotional, involved and
embodied presence is impossible in the distance education mode
only holds if it is assumed that the various actors involved
in what starts off as a distance education effort don't move
beyond their starting point. If, however, as I argued earlier
in this section, those same actors--who are all learners in the
true sense of the word, whether their formal role in the instructional
process qualifies them as such or as instructors or facilitators--continue
their explorations beyond the conditions of their starting point,
Dreyfus would be wrong. Then competent learners (and other actors
in the learning environment) will always find opportunities in
their wider environment to create such embodied presence to the
extent that they find useful to them. This requires a kind of
'learning intelligence' that involves entrepreneurship; creativity;
the ability to communicate personal goals and negotiate conditions
to reach them; and the autonomous capacity to monitor one's interactions
with the world. In the wider context it requires 'mentorship'
in the true sense of the word to be reinvented.
The term "mentor" derives
from ancient Greek mythology. The story can be found in Homer's
Odyssey. Mentor was the trusted friend of Odysseus and the tutor
of his son Telemachus. We are told in the Odyssey [i]that
the goddess Athena, the daughter of Zeus, on several occasions,
took on the form of Mentor to give advice to Telemachus and Odysseus.
The term "mentor" has since become synonymous of the
kind of personal relationship that typically seeks to benefit
the person who is being mentored. The beauty of Homer's account
is, of course, that it tells us that you don't have to be Mentor
himself to perform his functions. One can assume the shape of
Mentor, as Athena did.
In essence, mentoring is a role
that can be seen to represent one of the best sides of human
nature, the disposition to dedicate oneself to the well-being
of other people. I believe, based on personal experience, that
the proliferation of online communication has created propitious
conditions for people around the globe to reconsider their options
to serve as mentor and to benefit from mentoring.
A Changed Learning Landscape
I reserved my second question
to be dealt with last. "What are the key changes that we
notice in today's learning landscape and how can they be put
into hierarchical order in terms of the importance of challenges
posed to the learner?" (Question 2; J. Visser, in this dialogue).
I argued above that I consider
the notion 'online learner' an irrelevant and unhelpful concept
but that I recognize that the 'online learning space' is a relevant
and important extra dimension of today's learning landscape.
It is there in addition to the various other spaces in which
people traditionally used to learn. As explained, the online
learning space may at times be the dominant dimension of the
environment in which one learns; at times it may be complementary
or supplementary. The fact that it is there, and that the tools
through which it exists represent a certain level of technological
sophistication, requires of today's learners to be conversant
with those tools and their various uses. Some of those uses may
be culture sensitive, which adds a further challenge, considering
that the online learning space is not restricted to a single
culture.
However, I believe that the more
relevant changes in the learning landscape that we are facing
have to do with a change of emphasis in the purposes for which
we learn. In other words, they have to do with the kind of
problems we--and the world at large--face and the responsibilities
we attribute to ourselves as actors in that problematized environment.
Here I see the following changes:
Due to increased population
pressure on our tiny planet with limited resources (six billion
people in 2000; nine billion estimated for 2050), governing bodies
as well as individual human beings face challenges regarding
their day-to-day as well as long-term behavior that require a
level of understanding and intelligence not required to the same
extent of our immediate ancestors. The formal learning infrastructure
(universities, schools, the media, etc.) have so far inadequately
responded to the challenge to raise our consciousness and capacity
to live in harmony with ourselves, our fellow human beings, the
other species and our physical environment in general.
Our capacity to intervene in
our environment has dramatically increased. The extent of the
impact of what we do, or allow others to do, has outgrown our
capacity to foresee the consequences of our action. Here too,
we dramatically lag behind in fostering learning--and creating
the environment that nurtures it--that elevates our awareness
of planetary responsibilities. Yet, the online learning environment
is perhaps the opportunity par excellence to make important
inroads in this area of concern.
Linked to the phenomena highlighted
in the previous two points, the world of the 21st century is
characterized by turbulent change and a high level of unpredictability.
The current and future generations will have to live with such
unpredictability. It requires a high level of insight in and
control over one's own capacity to learn, to an increased extent
at Level 4 referred to earlier in this paper, and to do so in
a lifelong perspective. Learning to learn, in a conscious way,
should therefore be a prime concern, starting at the level of
raising infants and continuing to be a concern throughout life.
A Concluding Concern
The above analysis of challenges
that condition today's learning landscape contrasts sharply with
how I perceive the current reality of academic life, both as
regards students and faculty. The former are increasingly driven
by pressure to obtain certificates, diplomas and degrees that
give them access to jobs that may have little to do with what
they actually learnt to obtain those tokens; the latter live
under the pressure of complying with the exigencies of an increasingly
complex university bureaucracy, including the various formalities
related to the ritual of tenurization. Within that context, education
is more and more being considered as a commodity, a perspective
that degrades the provider of the commodity to the status of
a grocery. The fact that the commodity can now be traded online
has only exacerbated the situation. I believe this to be a dangerous
development.
References
Carter, R. (2002). Exploring
consciousness. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Chadwick, C. (2002). What is
learning? Educational Technology, 42(6), 64.
Daniel, J. (2002). Higher education
for sale. Education Today No. 3, October-December 2002,
p. 1.
Daniel, J. (2003). Debate McEFA.
Education Today No. 7, October-December 2003, p. 9.
Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On
the Internet. London and New York: Routledge.
Edelman, G. M. & Tononi,
G. (2000). A universe of consciousness: How matter becomes
imagination. New York: Basic Books.
Edelman, G. M. (2004). Wider
than the sky: The phenomenal gift of consciousness. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N. &
Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains,
and how children learn. New York, NY: William Morrow and
Company, Inc.
Greenfield, S. (2002). The
private life of the brain: Emotions, consciousness and the secret
of the self. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jain, S. et al. (2003). McEducation
for all? Opening a dialogue around UNESCO's vision for commoditizing
learning [Online]. Available: http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/mceducationforall.htm
[2005, March 29].
Jonassen, D. H. (2002). Learning
as activity. Educational Technology, 42(2), 45-51.
Koch, C. (2004). The quest
for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Englewood,
CO: Robert and Company Publishers.
Koch, C. (2005). The inchoate
science of consciousness: New approaches could help quantify
the mind-body gap. The Scientist, 19(17), 14-16.
Steinberg, D. (2005). Revelations
from the unconscious. The Scientist, 19(17), 17-19.
Visser, J. (2001). Integrity,
completeness and comprehensiveness of the learning environment:
Meeting the basic learning needs of all throughout life. In:
D. N. Aspin, J. D. Chapman, M. J. Hatton, & Y. Sawano (Eds.),
International Handbook of Lifelong Learning (pp. 447-472).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Visser, J. (2002, November).
Can we see the puzzle, rather than the pieces? Paper presented
in the framework of the Book of Problems (or what we don't
know about learning) dialogue held at the International Conference
of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
Dallas, TX, November 12-16, 2002 [also Online]. Available http://www.learndev.org/BOP-AECT2002.html#anchor4078218
[2005, September 23].
Visser, J., Berg, D., Burnett,
R., & Visser, Y. L. (2002, February). In search of the
meaning of learning: A social process of raising questions and
creating meanings. Workshop held at the Annual Convention
of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
Long Beach, CA, February 16-19, 2000.
Visser, J., Visser, Y. L., Amirault,
R. J., Genge, C. D., & Miller, V. (2002, April). Second
order learning stories. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New
Orleans, Louisiana, April 1-5, 2002.
Visser, J., & Visser, Y.
L. (2003). What's in a definition? A response to Clifton Chadwick.
Educational Technology Magazine, 43(2), 58.
Visser, M., & Visser, J.
(2003, October). "We closed our books and put them away."
Learning stories from Mozambique - A critical reflection on communicating
about the reality and future of learning. Paper presented
at the International Conference of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (AECT), Anaheim, CA, October 22-25,
2003.
Visser, Y. L., & Visser,
J. (2000, October). The Learning Stories Project. Paper
presented at the International Conference of the Association
for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO, October
25-28, 2000.
Epistemic Metacognition
- A Necessary Competency for the Online Learner
Christina Rogoza
Nova Southeastern
University
Received: October
6, 2005
Background
As an experienced and competent
online learner I am dumbfounded when someone suggests that "they
don't like to learn in the online environment." When I ask
why, the response is usually vague finishing with "I guess
I just like face to face interaction." When I ask why to
that, the answer back may go something like "I like to see
my instructor, I learn more that way." I find this perplexing
as I am an individual that could care less whether the instructor
is two thousand miles or three feet away. I will learn regardless.
Consider how restricted this
learner's world is by the fact that he feels that he must be
on location to experience learning. The questions arise as to
what his assumptions are about knowledge and learning that places
him in that space and how can his learning space be opened up?
My sense is that I am coming to the online table with very different
assumptions about knowledge than this other learner. Also I have
a certain amount of confidence in my ability to negotiate my
way through this environment and accomplish the learning tasks
at hand. This is something that this other learner may be lacking.
Is it possible to make this learner more competent in his ability
to engage in the online environment? How do we create online
learning environments that support the conditions necessary for
learner success and that enhance lifelong learning development?
Introduction
As distance learning has exploded
on to the learning landscape the rapid development of distance
learning technologies has facilitated a growing interest in exploring
pedagogical considerations in teaching and learning. As traditional
education has moved towards constructivist theory emphasizing
a learner-centered model, technology has enabled the same shift
to occur in distance education. Hence, educators and learners
find themselves challenged to not only a new paradigm of teaching
and learning but new learning environments created by emerging
technologies.
The concept of learner-centeredness
assumes that learners are responsible partners for their learning.
This rests on a constructivist foundation that learners construct
their own schema of knowledge based on prior experience and their
interaction with their environment. This demands that learners
be competent in problem solving, critical thinking, reasoning,
and reflective in their use of knowledge (Derrick, 2003). Learners
need to be adaptable and flexible in their learning strategies
as they respond to new situations. These are competencies that
are required to be successful in today's world.
These attributes are even more
important for online learners. Research has shown that online
learners need to be more self-directed than traditional learners
in a face to face environment. To be successful the online learner
needs to have the self-discipline, initiative, motivation, commitment,
time management skills, and organization skills to work independently
(Ko & Rossen, 2004, Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek,
2003). Hongmei (2002) suggests that self-motivated and self-disciplined
students are most likely to succeed in online learning. Therefore,
their success is dependent upon their ability to apply successful
learning strategies in self-directed learning.
Although these attributes for
online learners are acknowledged as essential for their success,
distance education student evaluations continue to be concerned
primarily with (1) student outcomes (achievement, grades, test
scores), (2) attitudes of students and instructors and, (3) satisfaction
of students and instructors (Walker, 2002). In fact, the instructional
design process for distance delivery draws from a behaviorist
paradigm that emphasizes achievement oriented outcomes. These
outcomes generally do not address attributes such as self-discipline,
motivation, and self-direction. Hence, there is a dissonance
between what we say are essential learner competencies and instructional
design and teaching practices that might support that goal.
The constructivist paradigm immerses
learners in a domain that requires them to adapt their learning
strategies to their personal characteristics and to the learning
context. This requires that students be able to critically reflect
on their use of cognitive strategies. Romainville (1994) asserts
that students are not adept at this and that the high rate of
failure in the first academic year of university may be attributable
to the lack of awareness and mismanagement of cognitive strategies.
Teaching learners how to be more aware of their learning processes
and how to regulate those processes will contribute to their
efficacy as autonomous, self-directed learners.
The American Psychological Association
(APA) developed a Learner-Centered Framework that included 14
principles about learners and learning. These principles were
organized into four domains, metacognitive and cognitive, affective
and motivational, developmental and social, and individual-differences.
These provide a framework for practices that can be applied to
distance learning environments (McCombs &Vakili, 2005). The
cognitive-metacognitive domain is one that will be addressed
in this discussion.
Metacognition
Metacognition has been identified
as a significant factor that impacts on learning. Metacognition
refers to higher order thinking which involves active control
over the cognitive processes engaged in learning. "Metacognition"
can be simply defined as "thinking about thinking."
Flavell (1976) the pioneer of metacognition research, described
it as follows: "Metacognition refers to one's knowledge
concerning one's own cognitive processes or anything related
to them, e.g., the learning-relevant properties of information
or data. For example, I am engaging in metacognition if I notice
that I am having more trouble learning A than B; if it strikes
me that I should double check C before accepting it as fact"
(p.236).
Metacognition is concerned with
the monitoring and regulation of cognitive processes. Essentially
we have thoughts and they consist of what one knows (i.e., metacognitive
knowledge), what one is currently doing (i.e., metacognitive
skill), or what one's current cognitive or affective state is
(i.e., metacognitive experience) (Hacker, 1998).
Metacognitive regulation consists
of sequential processes that help to regulate learning. Activities
such as planning how to approach a given learning task, monitoring
comprehension, and evaluating progress toward the completion
of a task are metacognitive in nature. For example, after reading
content the learner may use self-questioning to ensure that she
understands what she just read. After self-questioning she may
find that she does not understand the material and she determines
what needs to be done to meet the cognitive goal of understanding
the content (Livingston, 1997). Can this process of metacognitive
monitoring and regulation enhance the learning process of the
online learner? Would metacognition be considered a necessary
competency for the online learner?
Romainville (1994) found that
a relationship exists between academic performance and high achievement
of students who actively apply their metacognitive knowledge
about cognitive processes. The implications of this for instructional
design for distance learning environments are clear. Curriculum
design for any online course or program must incorporate strategies
to facilitate metacognitive processes to ensure learner success.
However, as I recognize metacognition
as a clear competency to accomplish learning goals, I have a
nagging feeling that there is something more to this, i.e., an
a priori awareness that precedes metacognition and opens the
door to engage in learning.
Epistemology
Metacognition has been discussed
as the regulation and control of cognitive strategies for learning.
There is no doubt that metacognition represents a necessary competency
for today's online learners. However, the whole notion assumes
the existence of a learner who is ready to actively engage in
learning in whatever learning environment is presented.
Research has shown that students'
perceptions of instructional practices are interpreted through
the lens of their epistemological assumptions. Personal epistemology
is essentially the beliefs that individuals hold about knowledge
and such beliefs influence the readiness of learners to engage
in the learning process. Thus, students have particular views
about how academic tasks, testing, interactivity, the structure
of the classroom, textbook choices, etc. relate to knowledge
acquisition (Hofer, 2004). It is this personal epistemology that
determines how the learner engages in the learning activity and
it is this that precedes the regulatory and control functions
of metacognition. Therefore, epistemic metacognition is an additional
dimension that needs to be added to the toolkit of metacognitive
strategies.
Personal epistemology can be
addressed from two areas: the nature of knowledge (what do I
know) and the process of knowing (how do I know what I know).
These can be further divided respectively into the dimensions
of certainty and simplicity of knowledge and source of knowledge
and justification of knowing (Hofer, 2004). These dimensions
can be viewed as existing on a continuum and are applied to the
learner as follows:
Certainty of knowledge. At one end, the learner views knowledge
as representing absolute truth and certainty. At the other end,
the learner's perspective is that there is no absolute knowledge
as it is continuously evolving. Simplicity of knowledge. At one end the learner views
knowledge as discrete facts. At the other extreme, the learner
views knowledge as contextual and relative. Source of knowledge. The learner might see knowledge as
existing external to self and residing in an expert authority.
At the other end of the continuum the learner might see knowledge
as being actively constructed in social interactions. Justification for knowing. This dimension addresses how
the learners justify and evaluate their beliefs. At one end of
the continuum they might justify their beliefs using authority.
At the other end they would evaluate the evidence and the expertise
of the authority.
It is important to understand
how students make epistemological sense of their learning environment.
One instructor noted how frustrating it can be to engage students
who are for example, at one end of the continuum at certainty
of knowledge where their beliefs may be grounded in religious
authority. These students simply did not see the need for dialogue
as their knowledge was certain and not debatable. This problem
is exacerbated in the online environment where the student can
literally turn off the conversation. It is evident that this
epistemological belief impacts on how or even if the student
engages in the learning community.
Beliefs about knowledge will
also influence the student's choice of learning strategies. Perhaps
the student believes that knowledge is simple and factual, and
therefore will memorize the facts with little thought to evaluating
those facts. At this point a cognitive prompt could be used,
but the student may disregard it if they believe that there is
no rationality for evaluating the facts.
Epistemological beliefs can be
general or subject specific. For example, students may have beliefs
about knowledge in the area of mathematics that differ from their
beliefs about knowledge in psychology. Therefore, facilitating
student awareness of their beliefs in this particular subject
area needs to be constructed in a comparative way to their general
beliefs about knowledge. If they see dissonance between the two
there is a window for reconciliation of the two sets of beliefs
and movement up the continuum.
Implications for the Distance
Learner
There is evidence that students
can move along this continuum of their beliefs and there are
interventions that will effect epistemological belief change
in learners moving them from simple to more complex reasoning
(Hofer, 2004). Epistemology could be said to be an aspect of
metacognition and consequently training students to be epistemically
aware will ensure their success in applying metacognitive processes.
Instructional approaches have
been developed that integrate the development of metacognitive
thinking processes into online curricula. In addition to this,
instructional design should focus on using the technology to
incorporate epistemic metacognitive processes as well. This dimension
of the metacognitive domain should be introduced at the very
start of online coursework with accompanying assessments of learner
engagement. As the learner becomes more adept at capturing their
epistemic understandings, they can move from simple to more complex
beliefs. Practice in this type of thinking can make it a habit
of the mind and will guide the learner to becoming a competent
lifelong learner.
References
Derrick, M.G. (2003). Creating
environments conducive for lifelong learning. New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 5-18 Retrieved
Sept. 26, 2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/
Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive
aspects of problem-solving. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Metacognition.
Retrieved Sept. 23, 2005 from http://tip.psychology.org/meta.html
Hacker, DJ (1998). Definitions
and empirical foundations. In DJ Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice
(pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved Sept. 25, 2005 from
http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/trg/meta.htm
Hofer, B. K. (2004) Exploring
the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom
contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 2, 129-163
Retrieved Sept. 13, 2005 from http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.novacat.nova.edu
Hongmei, L. (2002). Distance
Education. Pros, cons, and the future. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Western States Communication Association,
Long Beach, CA. Retrieved Oct. 2, 2003 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2004).
Teaching online: A practical guide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Livingston, J. (1997). Metacognition:
An overview. Retrieved Sept. 23, 2005 from http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/Metacog.htm
McCombs, B. & Vakili, D.
(2005) A learner centered framework for e-learning. Teachers
College Record, 107 (8), 1582-1600 Retrieved Sept.
28, 2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/
Romainville, M. (1994). Awareness
of cognitive strategies: The relationship between university
students' metacognition. Studies in Higher Education,
19(3), 359-366. http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/boulton/
Simonson, M, Smaldino, S, Albright,
M, & Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and Learning at a Distance
Foundations of Distance Education (2nd ed). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Education
Walker, K. (2002). Theoretical
Foundations for Website Design Courses. Technical Communication
Quarterly 11(1), 61-83 Retrieved Oct. 1, 2005 from http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu
Reflections from an
Instructional Design Perspective
Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
Open University of
the Netherlands
Received: October
10, 2005
Both learners and teachers
find themselves in a learning landscape that is constantly and
dramatically changing in terms of the modalities through which
people learn, the purposes for which they learn, and the context
in which learning acquires its meaning (Visser, this dialogue).
I will reflect on this phenomenon from the perspective of an
instructional designer rather than the perspective of a learner
- simply because being a learner does not distinguish me from
anyone else but being an instructional designer and, in particular,
being a researcher in the field of instructional design is my
profession. Instructional designers basically try to select instructional
methods that make learning effective, efficient, and appealing.
They typically do so on the basis of an analysis of, among others,
what ought to be learned, in which context or under which circumstances
it is learned, and by whom it is learned. Researchers in the
field of instructional design carefully investigate the conditions
under which particular methods yield desired effects and organize
those methods in instructional design models or theories. In
this short reflective paper, I will first sketch the new learning
landscape in terms of changes in what is learned, changes in
contexts, and changes in learners. Then, I will discuss the implications
for selecting instructional methods, that is, the implications
for the field of instructional design.
Changing What is Learned
In order to deal with rapid societal
and technological changes, people more than ever need problem-solving
and reasoning skills that allow them to deal with new, unfamiliar
situations in their professional and everyday life. This focus
on complex skills or professional competencies implies the integration
of knowledge, skills, and attitudes in such a way that transfer
of learning is enhanced. Thus, learning is no longer primarily
about reaching specific learning objectives, but about the ability
to flexibly apply what has been learned in new problem situations.
A related issue is that life-long
learning, often in non-formal settings, is becoming a necessity
to survive in a society in which jobs and technologies quickly
change. This asks for higher-order and "metacognitive"
skills that allow for independent, self-directed learning, such
as information problem solving, self-assessment and self-regulation
skills, and learning-to-learn. Consequently, in addition to flexible
and transferable professional competencies, learning competencies
are becoming increasingly important.
These developments in "what
is learned" have clear implications for the use of instructional
methods. In modern instructional theories, there is a focus on
whole, meaningful learning tasks that are based on real-life
tasks as the driving force for learning (Merrill, 2002; van Merriënboer
& Sweller, 2005). The general assumption is that such tasks
help learners to integrate the knowledge, skills and attitudes
necessary to deal with real-life problems, and also provide a
fruitful basis for the development of higher-order skills. Instructional
methods primarily pertain to experiential learning in real or
simulated task environments, and include the design of learning
tasks or learning experiences, the sequencing of those experiences,
and ways to scaffold the learning process (see van Merriënboer,
Kirschner, & Kester, 2003). On-line learning makes experiential
learning in simulated task environments only possible to a certain
degree. That is, it should be perfectly clear that on-line learning
alone would never be sufficient to educate medical doctors, who
need to practice with patients of flesh and blood; lawyers, who
need to practice in real court yards; or carpenters, who need
to practice with real wood and tools.
Changing Contexts
In addition to changes in what
is learned, there are also major changes in the contexts in which
learning occurs. Learning in technology-rich, informal and professional
settings is becoming general practice. In modern societies, people
have 24-hour opportunities to connect to other people and to
vast information resources through mobile phones, MP3 players,
Personal Digital Assistants, laptop computers, and other mobile
devices. These technologies allow for the realization of many
instructional methods that sustain different types of on-line
learning.
Even more important, new technologies
allow for time- and place-independent learning and for individualization
of instruction, because mass media (books, television, radio)
are more and more intertwined and replaced with personalized
media that provide on-demand information and support, tailored
to the particular needs and preferences of individual users and
learners. An enormous increase in the flexibility of education
may be expected, a process that is driven by mass-individualization
or mass-customization (Schellekens, Paas, & van Merriënboer,
2003).
Contextual changes clearly affect
the use of instructional methods. More and more instructional
methods can be realized in on-line tools and mobile devices,
and new media-method combinations emerge with their own specific
affordances. For instance, methods that stimulate learners to
construct knowledge may use the interactive possibilities of
hypermedia; methods that help learners to learn from each other
may take form in on-line learning communities, and methods that
aim at the just-in-time provision of information during professional
task performance may take advantage of mobile technologies (e.g.,
presenting operating instructions on-demand on a mobile phone,
PDA, or augmented reality glasses). Furthermore, the selection
of instructional methods will no longer be based on the general
characteristics of a whole "target group" but on the
specific characteristics of the individual learner.
Changing Learners
This takes us to the changing
learner. At an abstract level, it is tempting to describe the
emergence of the "on-line learner", who is directing
his own learning, who is focusing on the development of flexible
problem solving skills, who is having a rich mix of (on-line)
media to his disposition, and who is expecting instruction that
is fully tailored to his personal needs. But on the individual
level, differences between individual learners may have far greater
implications for the selection of instructional methods than
the emergence of the so-called on-line learner. I will give three
examples. First, life-long learning will evidently mean that
more and more elderly people become involved in goal-directed
learning. And there is research evidence that effective instructional
methods for older on-line learners are quite different from effective
methods for younger on-line learners, due to a significant decrease
in working memory capacity of the elderly (van Gerven, Paas,
van Merrienboer, Hendriks, & Schmidt, 2003).
Second, life-long learning also
implies that more and more learners are not novices in a particular
learning domain, but are at various stages of expertise development.
Recent research points out that this level of expertise is a
major factor to be taken into account when selecting instructional
methods. For instance, Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller
(2003) provide a review of research results on the "expertise
reversal effect", which indicates that instructional methods
that are effective for low-expertise learners are often ineffective
for high-expertise learners, and vice versa. For instance, low-expertise
learners learn more from studying worked examples than from solving
the equivalent problems, while the opposite pattern is found
for high-expertise learners.
Third, a common claim is that
young learners (the "gaming generation") learn in new
ways and have a new conception of learning. They would be better
able to learn by trial and error, to seek helpful resources,
to try out solutions, and so forth. This may be true for a subgroup
of young learners, but research also points out that there are
surprisingly large differences in students' perceptions of instructional
methods and learning environments. For instance, Könings,
Brand-Gruwel, and van Merrienboer (in press) studied the perceptions
of young students (13-14 years of age) who were confronted with
an educational innovation, characterized by the use of meaningful
learning tasks, more independent learning, and individualization.
Whereas some students perceived this innovation as desirable
and an impetus for their learning, others perceived it as undesirable
and not helpful for promoting their learning.
Implications
No doubt, the learning landscape
is drastically changing. With regard to what is learned, there
is more emphasis on complex skills and higher-order skills; with
regard to contexts, new technologies allow for flexible time-
and place independent learning and mass individualization; and
with regard to the learners, there are better opportunities to
adapt instructional methods to individual characteristics such
as age, level of expertise, and learner perceptions. High-quality
instructional design research is badly needed and should focus
on the question which instructional methods or method-media combinations
are effective, efficient and appealing for teaching complex and
higher-order skills, in a highly flexible fashion, and taking
learner's individual needs and preferences into account.
In my opinion, notions such as
"on-line learning" and "the on-line learner"
are not very helpful for the research field of instructional
design. On-line learning refers to a motley collection of methods
(presenting text on the screen, asking ready-made questions,
showing video clips and animations, evoking discussions in asynchronous
and synchronous discussion groups, engaging learners in highly
interactive games and simulations, etc.) that invoke very different
types of learning. This is not helpful to generate valuable research
questions. And the term "on-line learner" suggests
a homogeneity that simply does not exist: Effective instructional
methods for different subgroups of on-line learners (e.g., young
vs. old, high- vs. low-expertise, positive vs. negative perceptions)
seem to be much more different from each other than methods for
so-called on-line learners and "traditional" learners.
Moreover, what we need to develop for the future are not methods
for an intangible group of on-line learners, but methods that
are tailored to the personal needs of individual learners. Only
then, we are serious in putting the learner at the center of
the learning environment, whether it is on-line or not.
References
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler,
P., & Sweller, J. (2003) The Expertise reversal effect. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.
Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel,
S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (in press). Towards
more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives
of designers, teachers and students. British Journal of Educational
Psychology.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First
principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research
and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Schellekens, A., Paas, F., &
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2003). Flexibility in higher
professional education: A survey in business administration programmes
in the Netherlands. Higher Education, 45(3), 281-305.
Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F.,
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Hendriks, M., & Schmidt,
H. G. (2003). The efficiency of multimedia learning into old
age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,
489-505.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G.,
Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load of
a learners' mind: Instructional design for complex learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G.,
& Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning:
Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology
Review, 17(2), 147-177.
Reflections on Seeking
the 'Invisible' Online Learner
Michael F. Beaudoin
University of New
England
Received: October
11, 2005
Abstract
While much has been written
regarding the learning behaviors of students participating in
online courses, little research has been conducted to ascertain
whether or not students are still engaged and actually learning
even when not visibly involved in online discourse with other
students and faculty. This presentation summarizes a preliminary
study of inactive students enrolled in an online graduate course,
augmented by further reflections of the author based on expereince
and observation of online student behaviors over the next five
years following the initial study. These findings attempt to
identify how much time is spent in course related activity, what
the reasons are for "invisibility," and if preferred
learning styles influence their online behavior. The data shows
that these students do, in fact, spend a significant amount of
time in learning related tasks, even when not visibly participating,
and they feel they are still learning and benefiting from this
low-profile approach to their online studies. Preliminary analyses
of course grades indicate that the mean grade is better for high-visibility
learners than for no-visibility learners. Subsequent reflections
reinforce these findings, and suggest that further research on
so-called invisible learner is a critical area of invesitgation
to better understand the dynamics of asynchronous learning and
teaching.
Introduction
In 1999, I was asked to evaluate
a new course as a pilot to an online Master' s of Distance Education
curriculum offered jointly by University of Maryland University
College and Oldenburg University (Germany). The following year,
I had the opportunity to log into this same course as a faculty
observer. And, in the next year, I revised and mentored this
same course (Foundations of Distance Education), which I have
occasionally taught over the next three years.
In these various roles, I acquired
a keen interest in the phenomenon that has been referred to by
Helmut Fritz as "witness" learners (1997), and which
I have subsequently referred to as "invisible" learners
(2002a, 2002b, and 2003). This inquiry resulted in a study of
learners defined as such, and to several publications and presentations
on various aspects of that research.
Now, with the added benefit of
five years experience designing and teaching a variety of online
courses in three graduate programs for three institutions, it
seems an appropriate time to reflect on my own experiences as
a practitioner, and to augment my prior investigation with more
anecdotal and reflective observation and analysis regarding the
so-called 'invisible' student. It is my hope that this earlier
work, coupled with more recent practice, will generate further
interest and an exchange of ideas and opinions among colleagues
who are also intrigued by e-pedagogy, especially as it applies
to the teaching-learning dynamic with students who appear less
actively engaged in online discourse.
As interactive modalities increasingly
facilitate the connectivity between students and teacher and
students with other students, attention to the phenomenon of
online interaction has gained heightened interest among those
seeking to enhance the teaching-learning process at a distance.
In considering the learning process in this particular environment,
we might assume that it correlates closely to what is visible
(i.e., students' written words that appear on the monitor), and
conclude that if there is no visible online activity, then little
or no learning is likely to occur. Assuming that some learning
might indeed occur even when students in online courses are not
posting comments, what could be contributing to this tendency
to "lurk" on the periphery of course activity? Are
they "auto-didactic learners who prefer to remain as anonymous
and autonomous as possible? Do they forsake opportunities to
participate because thinking about what to write is more formal
and less spontaneous than oral, face-to-face dialogue typically
is? Do they frequently have a thought in mind that they are mentally
composing, but others often seem to express the same idea before
they can do so? Or are they simply having technical difficulties
mastering the intricacies of the particular online platform being
used?
What we do not see in asynchronous
environments, literally and figuratively, is what else is going
on that contributes to participants' learning. And it is easy
to assume that unless learners in online formats are actively
participating by posting frequent and relevant contributions,
they may be benefiting relatively little from this more passive
experience. Further, we might assume that unless students are
posting comments that are directly related to the designated
topic in, for example, a so-called threaded discussion forum,
their learning is likely to be further compromised. Thus, for
those students who, even if they do regularly log-on, but who
do not engage at all in a particular discussion or who seem to
be offering irrelevant or, at best, tangential remarks, we might
conclude that they just don't contribute to or benefit much from
the experience. Some distance education theorists argue that
the dialog between student and teacher is the essential defining
element of distance education; Holmberg stated that it should
consist of guided didactic conversation (1981). It is curious
that, although an historical tenet of distance education is the
notion of learners autonomously constructing their own knowledge,
instructors facilitating the learning process for distant students
often become alarmed when dialog with them wanes.
Helmut Fritsch, director of the
Center for Research in Distance Education at FernUniversitaet
(Germany), offers an insightful appraisal of the level of student
participation as measured by the frequency of online entries
at specific points in time as a seminar progresses. He developed
the notion of "witness learners" (i.e., students who
are not actively participating via written contributions at a
particular point, but who nevertheless are still engaged in the
process as observers (witnesses) of the written exchanges taking
place online between other students. He argues that learning,
even in this more passive and less visible mode, is still occurring
(1997). This was the working assumption that this study intended
to investigate.
Methodology
An online master's degree program
offered by the University of Maryland and Oldenburg University
enrolled two sections of the Foundation of Distance Education
course in fall 2000. Mid-way through the semester, it was noticed
that twenty-four (24) out of a total of 55 students in the two
sections had not actively participated (i.e., they posted no
online messages during one or both of the modules wherein two
prominent guest faculty, who had authored the required textbooks,
were each conducting a week-long online conference with each
cohort. Since the course format requires online participation
to successfully complete academic requirements, and because the
articulation of ideas (whether presented on paper or transmitted
electronically) is viewed as an inherently critical element of
the learning process, and so is seen as an activity which becomes
a key criterion for ascertaining academic success.
A questionnaire was designed
and administered to these seemingly "inactive" students,
with the intention of identifying the primary factors influencing
their non-participation in this particular component of the course.
This author designed the instrument, then transmitted it electronically
to the target population in Fall 2000, midway through the academic
term. It should be noted that this study did not take into account
gender, native language, and whether or not this was the respondents'
first online course
Findings
All twenty-four students responded
within the prescribed deadline. The first set of nine questions
asked for data regarding total hours spent during the two-week
conference period on various course related activities. The activity
that commanded the greatest amount of time was reading assignments-an
average of 12 hours over the two-week conference period. An average
of 7.6 hours was spent logging-on to the course site, and reading
others' comments.
The second set of questions posed
to these low-visibility students asked them to identify factors
(checking all that apply from a list of ten provided) that deterred
them from posting comments. Three-fourths of them responded that
they simply preferred to read what others wrote, or that they
had thoughts but others made similar comments before they could
post anything themselves. Only four students indicated that time
constraints limited the amount of time they could spend writing
comments.
The last set of questions was
intended to obtain data related to students' learning styles
in an online environment, and asked them to respond with a Yes
or No to ten items. All but one of the 24 respondents indicated
that they were often processing ideas gained from the course
even when not visibly participating. Nineteen (19) said they
felt they were learning just as much or more from reading others'
comments than from writing their own. About half identified themselves
as "autonomous" learners less inclined to be active
in group learning, regardless of the medium
Many emphasized that they spend many hours on the course, and
that they have gained much from the course, however little it
may appear that they participated; only two confided that online
courses did not seem to be their preferred way to learn.
Summing up respondents' comments
regarding the primary reasons given for non-participation, the
factor cited most often is that online learning is a new experience,
and students need time to become acclimated to using it. Three
admitted that their limited interaction online is similar to
how they would behave in a classroom setting. Several expressed
intentionality to write comments more frequently, but didn't
because by the time they were ready to do so, several others
had already posted similar ideas. It was also clear that many
were reluctant to offer online comments just for the sake of
being "present." Four students admitted to being self-conscious
about writing in this forum, one due to being a non-native speaker,
another to being shy, and the other two were just not sure how
to express themselves. Interestingly, two stated that they frequently
compose messages, but didn't post them; it may well be that this
behavior is a more common phenomenon than we might have initially
conjectured.
A preliminary analysis of final
course grades offers intriguing evidence that performance cannot
be easily correlated to participation, or that frequent participation
necessarily leads to better performance on graded assignments
conference. The statistics show that the mean grades are better
for the high visibility students than the no visibility students,
yet low visibility students seem to do a bit better than the
visible (average) students. This suggests that fully engaged,
highly participatory learners tend to perform strongly in graded
assignments, but that minimal online participation does not compromise
grades and, in fact, may reveal that these low visibility students
are dedicating more time to reflection and processing of course
material that translates to stronger assignments than those submitted
by students participating at an average level.
Discussion
What might we discover, at least
preliminarily, from this data? Regarding how much time is spent
on course related activity even though little of it is visible
to the faculty or to other students, we can state that our intuitive
assumption is correct that course related activity, though mostly
invisible, is taking place. Indeed, if over a two week period
in the lives of busy adult students, each spends an average total
of 44.6 hours engaged in these various course-related tasks,
it must be assumed that some learning, is taking place in an
ongoing fashion. While it may be tempting to question if students
really do, in fact, spend as much time as is claimed on these
activities, we must nonetheless accept their self-perceptions,
as we are not in a position to perceive what actually occurs
outside the online environment. It is quite remarkable, given
that this respondent group was identified on the basis of low
participation, that such a significant amount of time (i.e.,
22+ hours per week) is presumably devoted to academic activity
in this one course.
It is evident from the responses
regarding reasons for low participation that a significant factor
affecting online activity is a certain level of discomfort with
the electronic environment, causing some hesitancy to contribute,
and then the moment is lost. Students want to "get it right"
before they commit themselves to online dialogue because the
written format seems so "public." It may be that online
discourse feels more formal and premeditated, while classroom
discussion lends itself to a more spontaneous, informal exchange
that is not recorded and therefore is less likely to be retained.
That three-fourths of the respondents in our study indicated
they prefer to read rather than write may suggest a learning
style preference, but it may also relate to a lack of familiarity
and facility with the medium. And, although it might be suspected
that time constraints would be used frequently as an "excuse"
for low participation, the data revealed that lack of time was
a relatively negligible factor.
It is important to recognize that students' inclination to interact
can depend on a variety of factors, including age, personality,
learning styles, professional training, etc. Indeed, as Kearsley
(1995) and others have noted, it may be that the more autonomous,
self-directed learner is also more reflective, and so requires
less stimulation and reinforcement from interacting with more
"other-directed" peers. And it may be that the perception
that there are avenues for interaction are just as important
as actually utilizing them. Fulford and Zhang (1993) found that
a key factor in student satisfaction in an ITV course was not
the extent to which students actively participated, but rather
their perception that interaction was possible and was occurring.
This suggests that if courses are designed to provide interactive
features, and there is evidence that interaction is taking place
or even that the potential for it exists, than knowing it is
available may be as important as actually utilizing it.
It should be emphasized here
that we are not endorsing low-visibility behavior in online courses
as a desirable trait; the purpose of the study is to begin to
better understand those factors contributing to low visibility
participation at certain points as a course progresses, and to
determine if learning-related activities might be occurring "behind
the scenes." Also, it is noted that this study did not take
into account such factors as gender, native language, nor did
it record whether or not this was respondents' first online learning
experience.
Reflections
As indicated earlier, with the
benefit of mentoring a variety of online courses in the five
years since the 2000 study, I attempt here to further examine,
through experience and observation, these same dynamics regarding
the invisible online student, in hopes of better understanding
and effectively supporting these learners. I have posed the following
suggested questions that relate directly or indirectly to the
phenomenon under consideration here (i.e., the student who is
typically less active in an online course, in the sense that
s/he does not participate as frequently as others in online dialogue
via postings). The rationale/motivation for posing these particular
questions is that virtually (sorry for the pun here) every online
course I have mentored includes one or more such learners, and
they can present a special challenge to the distance educator
who wishes to honor differing learning styles, while not compromising
the course effectiveness. If we can understand what is going
on with this learner behavior, then we might better adopt instructional
approaches that appropriately accommodate the situation.
Should the online instructor
be lenient in assessing the invisible learner's minimal participation
in online dialogue if other course requirements are satisfactorily
met?
The value and importance of online participation in threaded
discussions must be emphasized from the outset of any online
course wherein the instructor intends to factor that activity
into student assessment. To not do so early only exacerbates
the situation when the instructor eventually notes minimal participation
by some, and so must then become the enforcer, possibly creating
an atmosphere of "forced" interaction. To allow minimal
participation by some students, with the thought that they will
simply have to suffer the consequences later when graded, is
likely to incur the ire of more engaged students, some who will
go so far as to admonish the instructor for not explicitly clarifying
expectations in this regard.
Given that online course environments
are generally enhanced by a community of scholars actively contributing
to the course, especially via online discussions, can it be argued
that the invisible learner's behavior is parasitic, in that s/he
frequently takes from, but seldom contributes to, the course?
The online instructor should
make his/her position quite clear at the outset as to the parameters
of participation and performance, and also what the rationale
is for such expected behaviors. Explaining the nature and purpose
of learning communities or other desired collaborative activities
may not ensure constant participation by all, but at least it
provides a cue from the instructor that one type of involvement
is preferred over the other. Of course, if the instructor does
not him/herself exhibit the type of online behavior expected
of students, the demand for interaction becomes problematic to
enforce.
Is there evidence indicating
that invisible learners, despite their minimal engagement in
online interaction with instructor and peers, actually do learn
and perform on graded assignments as well as, or even better
than, the more visibly active students?
In five years of observing and
assessing the work of online students, the pattern described
in the preliminary study conducted in 2000 seems to be consistent-
that the invisible student generally does as well as the moderately
visible student, but not as well as the highly visible peers.
This does suggest, as was noted in my earlier work, that the
so-called 'lurkers' may often represent the more reticent student
who feel they are quite engaged, learning and satisfying course
requirements, even if only posting minimally. Still, it must
be said that there are typically one or two of these students
who are not only not visible, but are also largely disengaged
from the course, hoping to marginally satisfy course criteria
and extract a passing grade.
Does the more "public"
aspect of the online environment hinder certain types of learners
from actively participating, or might the absence of face-to-face
interaction actually encourage more expression of ideas and opinions?
I am convinced that, in many
courses I have mentored in the past five years, the richness
of online discourse has been significantly greater than it would
have been with the same student populations in classroom-based
courses. This is especially the case, I believe with diverse
classes containing, for example, students of varying ages and
experience. Consider the following: In an issues-oriented course
(American Education) I have taught both face-to-face (f2f) and
online, I have always emphasized the importance of full participation
in discussions. Despite my efforts to establish a supportive
and comfortable environment, in either milieu, for the frank
expression of opinions and ideas, the younger traditional-age
students in my f2f classes have always been reluctant to express
themselves as much as the older adult students who are returning
to school. Yet, when this same course was offered for the first
time online, with the same demographic mix, the degree of candor
and boldness of expression among the younger students was noticeably
equal to that of their older counterparts from the very first
week's threaded discussion. It does seem to me that the online
setting allows for a sense of anonymity, and tends to equalize
the legitimacy of anyone's thoughts, regardless of age and experience.
Might the low visibility of some
students be a function of little or no prior experience with
online studies?
Students new to the online course
environment are generally able to adapt rather quickly, and there
is little evidence that their lack of familiarity with a particular
platform inhibits their participation. A recent example of this
is a course I am currently mentoring which was developed just
prior to being offered and, consequently, enrolled students were
informed relatively late that it would be delivered online. Four
students, in particular, expressed annoyance or apprehension
upon becoming aware of this, explaining that they had no prior
experience with online courses and wondered if this would compromise
their ability to successfully complete their studies. Yet, barely
three weeks into the course, these same four students have all
contacted me to express their pleasure with the course, and all
are at least as visible as their peers, most of whom have taken
online courses before. In fact, it is interesting to speculate
if perhaps it is the newness of the experience that makes them
especially active, as they are eager to master the medium as
effectively as others do.
Conclusion
These anecdotal reflections on
the 'invisible' learner generally reinforce findings of my earlier
study. What I would now propose to do is to pose essentially
these same questions in a follow-up study that could serve as
a "book-end" project, complementing the first preliminary
study, and these more informal conclusions based on experience
and observation. This would provide a series of three investigations,
to determine if the invisible online behavior chronicled here
would remain largely consistent in a third study. And it is hoped
that this would provide a sufficient amount of data and discussion
to prompt others to conduct their own research regarding the
'invisible' learner.
From these analyses, can we arrive
at any preliminary insights about what transpires "below
the surface" in an online context that either helps or hinders
learning? We can probably conclude that essentially the same
"witness learning" phenomenon occurs in both formats-
classroom and online. Certainly, most students are actively engaged
in learning activities, often in an auto-didactic fashion, even
though there may be relatively little obvious manifestation of
that activity. It could be suggested that the image of an iceberg
serves as a useful analogy here, in that most of its mass is
hidden beneath the surface, just as is the case with our invisible
students' learning.
It is premature to declare that
a certain level of interaction in online discourse is an essential
ingredient to student success or course effectiveness. All online
learners are invisible to the teacher; that some are less visible
than others is not necessarily an indicator that the benefits
of the learning experience are being compromised. Those who are
involved in the instruction and assessment of online learning
are reminded that although the medium is technology-based, the
actual learning remains an inherently auto-didactic and invisible
process, just as it is in courses at fixed times and places.
We are reminded here of Dewey's observation regarding a critical
element of the teaching process: to create conditions for "productive
inquiry" that takes place independent from the teacher.
In the online learning environment, teachers must be attentive
to process as well as content to ensure that this inquiry is
indeed occurring, however invisible it may be to them.
References
Beaudoin, M. (2003). Is the
'invisible' online student learning or lurking? Reflections on
teaching and learning in an online graduate program. Oldenburg,
Germany: Oldenburg University Press. ASF Series # 6.
Beaudoin, M. (2002). Learning
or lurking? Tracking the 'invisible' online student. The Internet
and Higher Education, Vol. 5, Issue 2, Summer.
Beaudoin, M. (2002). Finding
the elusive online student. Online Classroom. April.
Dewey, J. (1971). Experience
and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Fritsch, H. (1997). Host contacted,
waiting for reply. Final Report and Documentation of the Virtual
Seminar for Professional development in Distance Education
(pp. 355-78). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem
der Universität Oldenburg.
Fulford, C.P. and S. Zhang. (1993).
Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance
education. The American Journal of Distance Education,
7(3), 8-21
Kearsley, G.. (1995). The nature
and value of interaction in distance education. In M. Beaudoin
(ed. pp. 83-92), Distance Education Symposium 3: Instruction.
University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance
Education.
Five Thoughts on Online
Learning and Preparation for the Twenty First Century
John Bransford
University of Washington
October 16, 2005
As I sketch my thoughts, I'm
mindful of the highly effective process that Jan Visser put in
place to ( help? nudge? force?) each of us to better prepare
for this symposium. We were asked to post and share questions
and perspective relevant to issues of online learning. This has
helped each of us learn from one another, and will undoubtedly
affect the nature of our live presentations and interactions.
I personally have learned a great deal from the postings of my
co-presenters, and it is noteworthy that all this learning has
taken place "online".
Many of my collaborations with
colleagues across the world are also made possible by opportunities
for online interactions, and the advantages of these kinds of
interchanges are almost certainly apparent to everyone at this
conference. This brings me to several points that seem worthy
of mention. Most are obvious, but they nevertheless seem to be
potentially useful for helping us organize our discussions of
issues and opportunities.
1. Everyday Learning vs. Formal
Education
This first (obvious) point is
that learning is much broader than "formal education".
Most of what we learn throughout our lifetimes involves informal
rather than formal learning (e.g. Bransford, Vye et. al, in press),
and it seems useful to keep this distinction in mind when we
discuss "online learning". The online learning that
all of us have done to prepare for this symposium is not the
same as taking a formal course.
Of course, even "informal
vs. formal learning" is not a simple either-or distinction.
For example, preparation for this symposium involves a real world
task, deadlines, and even thoughts of "being graded"
(by audience members). Hence our online, non-course learning
contains elements of formal educational environments. Other kinds
of informal learning are less focused, time limited and "high
stakes". When discussing online learning and the learner
characteristics associated with it, differences between formal
and informal learning seem useful to keep in mind.
2. The Necessity of Developing
Online Learning Skills
The point above is related to
this second one; namely, that if we think about learning "writ
large" (i.e. beyond formal courses), the ability to engage
in online learning is fast becoming "necessary and not just
nice" (Thanks to Andrew Ortony for this phrasing--he used
it in the context of using metaphors to communicate).
Even if opportunities to learn
online are inherently inferior to opportunities to learn face
to face (which I doubt and will discuss later)--it is still the
case that online environments make it possible to learn much
more than would be possible if all learning were restricted to
face to face opportunities. A dramatically expanded range of
ideas and perspectives become available to us when we know how
to navigate in order to find the riches of the online world.
La Pointe's excellent article
(this symposium) includes a relevant quote from a student who
said: "I reflect and integrate aloud when participating
in class discussions and feel stifled having to reflect alone
through a private journal". This is clearly a valid concern
for the student, but it seems to me--and I suspect that all the
co-presenters agree--that we owe it to future learners to help
them understand the importance and benefits of learning to adapt
to online learning opportunities. Sometime in their lives, today's
students are going to need to make use of online learning opportunities.
We need to help them learn to develop the skill and courage spans
(Wertime, 1979) to learn to adapt to and embrace these opportunities--even
if they still prefer face-to-face interchanges.
This does NOT, of course, mean
that all of our students' learning--informal, formal or some
combination--needs to be online. But we do need to help students
realize that part of what they currently like is affected by
what they are used to, and that "stretching current "comfort
zones" by making attempts to adapt to new kinds of learning
environments is a major part of developing the "adaptive
expertise necessary for success in our increasingly fast - changing
world" (Hatgano & Inagaki, 1986; Schwartz, Bransford
& Sears (in press).
3. Learning Environments
All the participants in this
symposium have made the important point that we should talk about
online learning environment rather than talk as if there is only
one face-to face environment and one online environment. In the
student quotation from La Pointe's paper that I noted above,
the student prefers face to face interactions over "…reflect(ing)
alone through a private journal." As many in this symposium
note, private journals are not a 'necessary' component of on
line environments but, instead, one of many options. As we all
know, it is both possible and relatively commonplace to have
online opportunities for interaction among learners (rather than
only private journals). And there are many additional features
of learning environments that are possible as well.
It would be a shame if our students
developed either the explicit or implicit assumption that there
is only one format allowed in online learning--just as it would
be a shame for them to assume that all face to face learning
is always lecture, or always free-form unguided small group discussion;
always cutthroat competition rather than cooperation to help
everyone achieve high standards, etc. Helping learners understand
the potential landscapes of both face-to-face and on-line environments
(plus blended combinations) seems to be a component of "learner
centeredness" that is important for us to pursue (e.g.,
see Duffy et. al, 2004).
4. Adaptive Expertise and
Guided Collaborative Design
If there is anything about online
learning environments that is a certainty (for both informal
and formal learning), it is that they will continue to change
quite rapidly. Preparing learners to adapt to change therefore
seems like a high priority. And we if create two-way feedback
loops and learner-adjustable interfaces, learners can play an
important role in this change.
In order to accomplish this,
we need to move from tacit "trait theories" of learning
styles and preferences to "momentary state theories"
that encourage people to become metacognitive about what is working
at the moment and why. Based on the learning sciences literature
(e.g., National Research Council, 2000), my bet is that people's
need to see, hear, touch, feel, interact personally, etc. will
vary depending on the subject matter being taught and their level
of expertise within that subject matter. For example, novices
typically need visuals--often dynamic ones--to learn about plate
tectonics whereas more advanced learners can read or listen and
generate their own images. Our society sets the stage for prompting
people to adopt "trait-like" theories of themselves
as learners when, in reality, peoples' needs and preferences
are much more situative depending on their current knowledge,
goals and learning context. Overall, we need to help students
develop the habits of mind to continually adapt, adopt, and even
invent offline and online "smart tools" that will help
them as they progress through life and along various expertise
trajectories (e.g. Bransford, Zech, etc. 1999); Schwartz, Bransford
& Sears, in press). As noted above, this needs to be a lifelong
quest--it's not a one-time task of finding a single learning
style and sticking with it for a lifetime.
5. Special Affordances of
Different Kinds of Learning Environments
If there is anything about online
learning environments that is a certainty (for both informal
and formal learning), it is that they will continue to change
quite rapidly. Preparing learners to adapt to change therefore
seems like a high priority. And we if create two-way feedback
loops and learner-adjustable interfaces, learners can play an
important role in this change.
In order to accomplish this,
we need to move from tacit "trait theories" of learning
styles and preferences to "momentary state theories"
that encourage people to become metacognitive about what is working
at the moment and why. Based on the learning sciences literature
(e.g., National Research Council, 2000), my bet is that people's
need to see, hear, touch, feel, interact personally, etc. will
vary depending on the subject matter being taught and their level
of expertise within that subject matter. For example, novices
typically need visuals--often dynamic ones--to learn about plate
tectonics whereas more advanced learners can read or listen and
generate their own images. Our society sets the stage for prompting
people to adopt "trait-like" theories of themselves
as learners when, in reality, peoples' needs and preferences
are much more situative depending on their current knowledge,
goals and learning context. Overall, we need to help students
develop the habits of mind to continually adapt, adopt, and even
invent offline and online "smart tools" that will help
them as they progress through life and along various expertise
trajectories (e.g. Bransford, Zech, etc. 1999); Schwartz, Bransford
& Sears, in press). As noted above, this needs to be a lifelong
quest--it's not a one-time task of finding a single learning
style and sticking with it for a lifetime.
5. Special Affordances of Different
Kinds of Learning Environments
Whether face-to-face, blended,
or primarily online, particular features of learning environments
have special affordances that affect learning. Sometimes it helps
to be able to feel objects (weight, smoothness, etc.) manipulate
them and so forth (e.g. Brophy, `9 ). In the movie Apollo 13
for example, engineers are shown solving a problem that actually
occurred in the Lunar Landing Module (LLM)--they received a box
of parts and were told to "make this from these". Without
the actual 3D parts, it is doubtful that they would have succeeded
in a timely manner. Computer-based 3D models of the parts would
probably have been less effective. In other cases, of course,
seeing a 3D simulation (e.g. at the level of nano-technology)
can be uniquely advantageous for helping people learn. Similarly,
some people are more likely to participate in discussions when
they are live; others prefer online discussions. As Stirling
so clearly explains, these often involve differences in high-context
versus low-context communication systems. Plus they can involve
high or low affect--students who have problems in my courses
(e.g. with grades or with other students) often prefer to discuss
them first over E-mail because they are afraid of crying if we
meet face-to-face. Overall, there are different affordances of
various environments that fit different needs. And of course,
multiple affordances can be available in any environment--especially
blended ones.
A number of symposium participants
mention comments from colleagues suggesting that online environments
are inherently inferior to face to face environments (see especially,
Spector). Ongoing work suggests that there are affordances of
online environments that provide advantages that can be hard
to duplicate in mere face-to-face classrooms. For example, my
colleague John Bourne (2001) created "knowbots" that
knew when an assignment was due and nicely reminded students
that a deadline was approaching (it might say, "Are you
feeling OK? I notice you haven't posted your assignment yet and
it's due in an hour. Let me know if you need some special help".).
This greatly increased the degree to which students posted on
time. For this symposium we had our own "knowbot"--Jan
Visser--who did an excellent job of nicely reminding us when
things were due. However, for people with large classes, electronic
knowbots make the task of politely reminding students much easier
to achieve.
The VaNTH Center for Bioengineering
Education Technologies (http://www.vanth.org) has developed the
CAPE system, which can be used in blended or totally online settings.
The program makes it easy for instructors to create challenge-based
lessons and build in a set of formative assessments that allow
students to take particular paths depending on how they answer.
Students can stay connected to one another as well. One of the
nice features of the system is that it can be used to connect
homework assignments with students' performances in classes.
Keeping close track on what each students understands and needs
on a frequent (e.g. class-by-class) basis - and providing appropriate
out-of-class follow-ons, is--of course--very difficult in traditional
instructional contexts.
The ability to connect the Internet
and handheld devices (iPods, Palms, etc.) provides additional
advantages for learning. For example, students can have access
to materials while driving in the car, waiting in lines, etc.;
hence we can help them open up new spaces for learning to occur.
It is exciting to keep an eye on affordances of online environments
that allow us to surpass the levels of learning that have occurred
in the past.
Summary
Overall, the preceding thoughts
(developed in part by having the opportunity to read the great
thoughts of my co-presenters) help me address the issues and
questions I posted several weeks ago; namely: (1) why the idea
of lifelong learning means that all of us must become "adaptive
experts" who must frequently be willing and able to step
out of existing comfort zones and give up old ways of doing things
in order to adapt; (2) how online environments (especially blended
ones) can improve on traditional classroom instruction: (3) how
appropriately designed online environments can encourage problem
solving and knowledge building (e.g., see CAPE at VaNTH.org;
Bransford et. al, 19 ); (4) how opportunities to connect to new
handheld devices opens up new spaces for learning that tend to
be wasted otherwise (e.g. while waiting in lines, driving in
the car).
I look forward to the live interactions
that represent the next step in this journey.
References
Bransford, J. D., Zech, L., Schwartz,
D., Barron, B., Vye, N., & CTGV. (1999). Designs for environments
that invite and sustain mathematical thinking. In Cobb, P. (Ed.),
Symbolizing, communicating, and mathematizing: Perspectives
on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bransford, J. D., Vye, N. J.,
Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., Meltzoff, A.,
Barron, B., Pea, R., Reeves, B., Roschelle, J., & Sabelli,
N. (in press). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade
of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (Volume 2). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duffy, T.M., & Kirkley, J.R.
(2004). Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K.
(1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma,
& K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in
Japan (pp.262-272). NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
National Research Council (2000).
How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded
Edition). Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning.
J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), with
additional material from the Committee on Learning, Research
and Educational Practice. Commission on Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[On-line]. Available: http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/.
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J.
D., Sears, D. L. (in press). Efficiency and innovation in transfer.
To appear in J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research
and Perspectives. Information Age Publishing.
Wertime, R. (1979). Students'
problems and "courage spans." In J. Lockhead &
J. Clements (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction. Philadelphia:
The Franklin Institute Press.
Laboratory of Cognitive
Engineering and Learning Environments (LICEF)
Tele-universite/UQAM, Montreal
October 17, 2005
Introduction
The point of view expressed in
this text corresponds to a researcher interested in identifying
the competencies of the online learning actors and fascinated
by the complexity of the task. They are based on professional
experience in the elaboration of lists of competencies and the
use of a graphical modeling technique to integrate the competencies
at curriculum, program or activity level and to make them match
with appropriate resources to facilitate the online learning
process. I would like to point out some difficulties surrounding
the elaboration of online learner competencies and propose some
hints to analyze them.
Context
As indicated by Jan in the introduction
of this website, this panel was inspired, at least in part, by
an ongoing project of the International Board of Standards for
Training, Performance and Instruction (ibstpi), in relation with
the online learner competencies.
It is in the venue of competencies
that I formulated my questions for this panel. My expectation
is to move forward the discussions on competencies that have
been generated in the context of the Board as well as with colleagues
at Téluq, the distance education university where I do
research on the competency-based approach applied to online learning.
The questions I propose stem from issues under consideration
by the "ibstpi online learner competencies team" (the
OLC Team), suggesting that the online learner competencies are
more challenging and difficult to "capture" than other
sets of competencies previously elaborated by the Board, such
as those for instructional designers, instructors, training managers
and evaluators. Why is this so?
A preliminary explanation to
this query can be found in certain opinions generated in discussions
among OLC Team members and invited participants.
To elaborate a list of online
learner competencies, it is important to distinguish the online
learner from other types of learners (ex. Face-to-face learner)
or the learner in general. This distinction seems unclear. (See
Jan's reflections posted in this website)
By focusing on the online learner
as individual, competency frameworks lose sight of the contextual
and situational nature of learning in online environments.
The competency framework provides
a limited structure to articulate the basic criteria for online
learners to be successful.
The end-users of the online
learner competencies are difficult to depict, among others, due
to the diversity of goals and interests they may have in online
learning, their context of learning (ex. academic, corporate),
type of learning (ex. formal, informal), level of expertise with
technology, etc.
Please note that these opinions
do not necessarily reflect the OCL Team's position but my personal
interpretation of discussions by phone conversations, face-to-face
meetings, email messages and a Wiki exercise led by the OLC Team
in the last two years.
It is from these assumptions
that emerged my three questions for this panel:
What makes a successful online
learner?
What is the role of online learners
in a multi-actor environment?
Are online learners getting
what they want/need?
What Makes a Successful Online
Learner?
This question encompasses two
main concepts: success and online learner. With regards to success,
for the purposes of this panel, and to be coherent with the premises
stated earlier, this question focuses on the competencies required
by the online learner to be successful in terms of the realization
of his/her planned learning outcomes whether they are cognitive,
affective, psychomotor, or meta-cognitive. To tackle the concept
of "online learner", it is appropriate to distinguish
between online learner and other types of learners, otherwise
said: "Is there such a thing as an online learner"?
(J. Visser, on this website).
Online Learner or Just Learner?
A close look at the work done
by ibstpi in the past four years may shed some light on this
issue, especially during the creation of the list of instructors'
competencies, when particular attention was brought to find out
if the competencies for face-to-face instructors were different
from those of the online instructors.
By modeling the competencies
in a graph, according to the modeling technique developed at
LICEF, it became clear that the domains in which the competencies
had been organized were shared by both types of instructors:
Professional foundations, Planning and preparation, Instructional
methods and strategies, Assessment and Evaluation, and Management.
Furthermore, the competencies under each domain could apply to
both types of instructors. For example, "Demonstrate effective
presentation skills", or "Demonstrate effective questioning
skills" are competencies required for instructors in general,
regardless of the type of tools used. However, the performance
statements (PS) of each competency appeared to be different according
to the applied instrument. This is the case of PS "Follow
up on questions from learners", that instructors perform
in a different way depending on the context and type of tool.
For example, time managing will be different if the tool used
for questioning is synchronous (chat) or asynchronous (forum,
email, etc.). Also, the type of interaction during questioning
may depend on the cardinality (one to one, one to many, many
to one, many to many) as well as on the type of media (text,
images, video, audio, manipulation).
This finding suggests that, at
the highest level, the competencies are generic for all instructors,
but that they differ when different technology settings mediate
the activities. This is consistent with the Activity theory,
which considers that "human experience is shaped by the
tools and sign systems we use."
By applying this principle to the online learner one could come
to the conclusion that a learner is a learner, but that when
the online technology mediates the activity and the object, the
online learner requires a particular kind of competencies (cognitive,
affective and psychomotor) to make his/her "mediation"
successful.
Competencies or Hints?
It is interesting to see there
are very few studies on online learner competencies, but many
universities and organizations offer hints and tips on the Web
to help the learner succeed in an online environment. For example,
according to WorldWideLearn, "These are the traits that
successful online students possess, to varying degrees: Self-Directed,
Motivated, Comfortable with computers, Able to use email, internet
browser, word processor, Like to read and write, Inquisitive,
Disciplined, Independent, Able to stay on task". Although
very important for online learners, these tips can also benefit
face-to-face learners (see C. Rogoza). Even flow and engagement
(see D. LaPointe) are not exclusive to a specific type of learning.
In my opinion, and from an operational
point of view, to identify the competencies that are specific
to online learners, it is essential to start by categorizing
the competencies required in the learning process (for the learners
in general) and then, to distinguish the impact that online tools
have in the different tasks and activities. Only in that way
it will be possible to identify the skills required to perform
those tasks and activities. It is in the way of viewing learning
that the qualities that make for a successful online learner
will emerge.
What is the Role of Online
Learners in a Multi-Actor Environment?
Tools are key to identify the
specificity of the online learner competencies but they are not
the center of the online learning process. In fact, it is not
the tools but its use that is instrumental to online learners.
"Tools are never used in a vacuum, but have been shaped
by the social and cultural context where the use is taking place."
(Bannon).
In the context of online learning,
the use of tools is manifold because there are different actors
that use the same tools in different ways and each actor has
panoply of activities to perform. This entails a double analysis
of competencies. The first analysis focuses on the way each actor
uses the tools and allows the creation of the list of competencies
per actor. The second considers how actors interrelate with each
other and the use they do of tools for interacting. This type
of analysis suggests a sort of "collective competencies"
that need to be considered in a multi-actor dynamics where an
actor cannot perform a specific competency if the other actors
do not support him by performing their related competencies.
Otherwise said, it would be very difficult to stipulate the competencies
required by online learners to be successful, without considering
their relation with the other actors and their competencies.
This complex endeavor, that highlights the collective nature
of online learning has been, to my knowledge, dimly explored
by studies on competencies, and may benefit to be regarded from
a modeling approach.
The scene becomes more intricate
when one considers that each actor can play various roles during
the online learning process. Playing different roles means using
the tools in different ways because in a learning context, different
actors can use the same tools for different purposes. Online
learners for example, may use a learning-object repository to
search information; for the instructional designer the interest
could be to reference his/her work in order to reuse it later;
the instructor may analyze materials for further use, and the
manager could use the repository to track the updating of materials.
From a learner-centered perspective,
online learners are in charge of selecting learning strategies
appropriate to their goals and preferences, finding their own
resources, building up social interaction that will provide instructional
scaffolding, and managing their own learning. The online learner,
as an actor, is therefore asked to perform roles that usually
were the exclusive realm of other actors in the learning process.
The instructional designer was in charge to provide the pedagogical
strategies and design the materials; the instructor was accountable
of the knowledge and the strategies to deliver it, whereas the
manager controlled and administered the operations.
The roles of online learners
change during the learning process, which in turn modifies the
required competencies for each of the actors, just like in a
structure of variable geometry. Therefore, it is essential to
consider the online learner competencies within a non-static
learning context.
Are Online Learners Getting
What They Want/Need?
Several authors in this website
have outlined the diversity of interests of online learners,
as well as the numerous contexts in which the learning process
can take place making it difficult to categorize the type of
expectations that online learners may have. Moreover, expectations
are not always clear or easy to express and it would be particularly
challenging to find some of the competencies required to fulfill
a certain goal.
It would be naive to think that
competencies are THE solution for an online learner to be successful.
Let's remember that one of the main functions of competencies
is to give objective guidelines to recruit and assess personnel.
To which extent developing certain skills such as self-assessment,
autonomy and flexibility, represent the learner's innermost interests?
The reflections on the online
learner competencies need to be extended into a society perspective,
"since the concept of competence involves some reference
to desired or required performance, the question may now be put
of who desires or requires that performance." (Holmes)
References
Bannon, L. (1997). Activity Theory.
Interaction Design Centre. University of Limerick http://www-sv.cict.fr/cotcos/pjs/TheoreticalApproaches/Actvity/ActivitypaperBannon.htm
Henri, F., and Lundgren-Cayrol,
K. Henri, France ; Lundgren-Cayrol, Karin. Apprentissage collaboratif
à distance : pour comprendre et concevoir les environnements
d'apprentissage virtuels. Sainte-Foy (Québec, Canada)
: Presses de l'Université du Québec, 2001, 181
p. http://www.puq.uquebec.ca/data/D-1094.html
Holmes, L. (1992). Understanding
professional competence: Beyond the limits of functional analysis.
Prepared for Course Tutors' Conference, Institute of Personnel
Management at UMIST, 6-8 July 1992. http://www.re-skill.org.uk/relskill/profcomp.htm
Klein, J. D., Spector, J. M.,
Grabowski, B., & de la Teja, I. (2004). Instructor competencies:
Standards for face-to-face, online, and blended settings. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Nardi, Bonnie A. (ed.). (1996)
Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
Paquette, G. (2002). Modélisation
des connaissances et des compétences, Presses de l'Universite
du Quebec. St-Foy, Quebec.
Far left: AECT President
Wes Miller kicking off the dialogue at the Presidential Panel
Session at the AECT Convention in Orlando, Florida, on October
22, 2005. Behind the table, from left to right: Jeroen van Merrënboer,
Michael Beaudoin,
Deb LaPointe and John
Bransford.
Audio files
of the panel session
For the benefit of those who
were unable to attend the panel session, we make available below
the audio files (in MP3 format) of the successive segments of
the session. Sound files are large and will thus take time to
download (some may take several minutes, even on a broadband
connection and considerably longer via a dial-up connection).
Your best approach to downloading a file will be to right-click
on the link and then choose 'save target as' to save the file
to your desktop or any directory of your choice before listening
to it. Sound files are in the MP3 format and are thus compatible
with most audio players. All recordings are in stereo. It will
thus be of help to use headphones when listening to the discussion
sessions so as to better separate the different voices.
Opening
remarks by AECT President, Wes Miller