Most models assume that the creation of an instructional process is the intent of design. This view only addresses the transmission domain of learning. The domains of accretion, emergence and acquisition are often unattended in traditional design. As previously stated, each domain has different object of design. Each different design object is indicative of a different view or theory of learning. Figure 3 expresses the link between learning domain and suited learning theory.
The instructional process is the object of design in the transmission domain. Traditional ID models attend to transmission through focus on explicit learning objectives, content analysis, content sequencing, and blueprinting the instructional flow. This model has particular value in creation of courses, programs, and workshops. The instructor (due to activities of the designer) is kept at the centre of the instructional process. Transmission is particularly useful when introducing new bodies of knowledge or meeting compliance-training needs. Much of today's educational system is built on this model of learning. Education is constructed with start and end points (courses, programs, degrees). Learners are exposed to key ideas within a knowledge field by an instructor who is competent in the domain. Transmission occurs through readings, lectures, and more recently, group work and collaborative activities. Behaviourism and cognitivism are the predominant learning theories utilized in conjunction with the transmission domain of learning. The capacity for reflective and critical thinking is the object of design in the emergence domain. Emergence is a less common form of learning, but its effects are significant. In a sense, emergence opens doors to new fields of knowledge, leading into the selection of accretion or acquisition domains to continue knowledge development. Reflection and cognition provide learners with the capacity to explore new realms. Serendipitous learning is also an important aspect of the process. The formulation of innovative approaches and new perspectives are functions of emergence learning. Cognitivism and constructivism are the learning theories most reflective of how learning occurs in the emergent domain. Access to resources is the object of design in the acquisition domain. Acquisition is a large part of learning. Designers also seek to improve the abilities of learners to manage and navigate knowledge resources. It is a largely unstructured process where learners select their own objectives and intent for learning. Often, personal interest is the motivating factor. Of all the learning domains, acquisition is the most "fun". Subject matter being explored is highly relevant to the learner's interest and use. Learners may reach beyond current resources to connect with others in the creation of virtual communities. The internet has made the formation of communities based on interest (not geography) possible. Connectivism (Siemens, 2004) and constructivism are the learning theories that most adequately inform the nature of acquisition learning. Networks, environments, and ecologies are the object of design in the accretion domain of learning. Most learning happens in this domain. Learning at this level is a function of creating connections, foraging for needed knowledge, and "plugging in" to learning sources (as compared to possessing learning). Knowing where to find needed information is valued above possessing information, due to how quickly information evolves and changes. The designer's role in this domain of learning is to create the construct and opportunities for learners to pursue and provide for their own learning. The network itself is the critical learning element. Connecting learners to networks and communities ensures that knowledge is relevant and current. Connectivism Connectivism as a learning theory provides insight into the dynamics of networks, environments, and ecologies in relation to accretion learning. It consists of the following principles:
Learning Ecology If course-based learning is out of date for today's learner, what is the alternative? The answer can be found in learning ecologies and networks : structures that emulate continual learning. John Seely Brown (2002) defines a learning ecology as "an open, complex, adaptive system comprising elements that are dynamic and interdependent". Learning ecologies possess numerous components (Siemens, 2003):
These ecologies possess numerous characteristics that need to be attended to in the design process. The following components should be present in an ecology:
The formation of networks within ecologies adds a personal aspect to learning endeavours. A network consists of two or more nodes linked in order to share resources. A node is a connection point to a larger network. Learning communities, information sources, and individuals can all be classified as nodes (it is important to note that a node does not need to be a person. For example, an RRS aggregator can be classified as a node that delivers information to the larger network). A network, in the context of an ecology and communities, is how we organize our learning communities, resulting in a personal learning network. Technology is an important aspect of our current social landscape. McLuhan stated (1967): "Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without a knowledge of the way media works as environments" (p.26). This environmental view of learning and technology provides considerable insight into how designers approach learning. Linking social and cultural change with ecology-designed learning opens new possibilities for creating integrated, relevant learning. Learning Development Cycle Learning Development Cycle (LDC) in Figure 4 is a
meta-learning design model. The different domains of learning require
a model that addresses different approaches, intent, and desired outcomes.
The most critical stage of the design model is the determination of
the object of the design process.
Stage 1: Scope Planning and analyzing the scope of learning design begins with the recognition that no one model (i.e. transmission) is able to attend to the entire scope of learning. Eisner (1992) addresses the value of moving from a static model of learning design: "...sustaining a direction in schooling or maintaining a set of priorities in the curriculum is much more like nurturing a friendship than installing a refrigerator in the kitchen. The latter requires virtually no attention after installation: the same cannot be said of friendship" (p. 305). Stage 2: Creation During the design stage, the main considerations relate to the nature of the content and the planned interaction. Media for presenting content and fostering interaction are also explored and finalized (though the pilot and user-evaluation phase will inform media selection). McLuhan captures the essence of the issue of media and technology selection and use: "In the name of "progress" our official culture is striving to force the new media to do the work of the old". In many cases, learning objectives may be used (either explicitly stated or implicitly utilized during the development process). Certain learning projects will not include explicit objectives. For example, a learning ecology for accretion learning will give learners far greater control in pursuing objectives which are relevant to work tasks or needs. Blueprinting and sequencing of learning material are less important in emergence, acquisition, and accretion learning. Through the provision of learning ecologies, learners themselves play the critical role in determining needed knowledge. Simply making learning resources available allows learners the capability to navigate the turbulent knowledge waters that define much of work today. Learning is not an "in advance of need" concept. Blueprinting and sequencing is partly unnecessary if adequate ecologies of learning have been designed. Learning occurs not only through content exposure, but also through interaction, reflection, and cognition. Learner motivation should be in the background of the entire Creation stage of LDC. Keller (1987) proposes the ARCS model consisting of four major categories to increase, create, or reward learner motivation: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Learners often do not require external motivation when meeting a knowledge need of high relevance (work or personally). Most often when learners are foraging for information, motivation is intrinsic. Learning networks, for example require limited design intervention to foster motivation. More traditional design (like courses and workshops) will benefit from specific focus on Keller's ARCS model. The development stage of LDC focuses on identifying subject matter experts, creating the development timeline, exploring skill sets needed for completing the project, and doing the actual work of creating the learning. Initiating a process of piloting content and interaction is important at this level. Instead of waiting until the completion of a learning resource, the designer receives valuable information during the creation stage. This information can then be incorporated into ongoing design and development. Depending on budget, scope, and timelines, the design team may include a diverse group including graphic designers, programmers, media specialists, subject matter experts, and end users. During delivery of the learning resource, the activity shifts to implementation. Depending on which learning domain was served during design, the content and interaction process may fall into the care of an instructor, a network of learners, or an individual support system (for emergence or acquisition). Support activities are also important at this stage. Technical, learning, or general support should be available to ensure the design of content and interaction does not interfere with learning. The support network is particularly important to learners who are taking an online course for the first time, joining a network or ecology, or using resources for acquisition or reflection. Early, successful use of learning resources is critical to continued use. The design, development, and delivery stages are fluid and interdependent. Thiagi (1999) explores the challenges inherent to this process:
Stage 3: User Experience and Piloting Stage 4: Meta-evaluation Stage 5: Evaluation Evaluation is not entirely limited to organizational assessment of the learner. Effective evaluation should allow each learner to provide feedback on the quality of the learning resource, instruction (if it was a part of the experience), relevance, and format. If possible, evaluation should be ongoing though out the learning experience. This may be as simple as encouraging each learner to set up a reflective blog, or contacting learners (email, phone) for direct feedback. Evaluations that only take place at the end of a learning resource (assuming that the resource has an "end") overlook many opportunities for valuable insight for designers. Learning Development Cycle can be approached in a variety of ways. Most common, and best suited for most organizations, is the linear model presented in Figure 5. As stated previously, determining the object of the design process is a critical element. Once the design object has been determined, designers move into the creation stage. A feedback loop is included in order to provide ongoing feedback into the entire process. Multiple iterations will inform and guide continued scope and learning resource creation. As with most theories, life usually does
not fit into a clear, concise model. Most often, there is overlap
between different domains of learning. The design process can then
be seen as focusing primarily on one domain, yet still accounting
for aspects of another domain. For purposes of espousing a theory,
four distinctive domains are used. In actual design situations, a
designer will likely select aspects of each domain to create the optimum
learning resource.
New Tools and Processes A new model of learning design also requires new tools and processes. Many of these tools are already in use in a subculture of internet users. The tools are characterized by: sociability, collaboration, simplicity, and connections. Blogs, wikis, RSS (Really Simple Syndication), instant messaging, Voice over IP, and social networking applications are gaining increased attention in progressive organizations. These software tools are at odds with how many organizations are currently designed (top-down, highly structured, hierarchical, and centralized). As simple social technologies continue to expand in influence, a core reorganization of many institutions can be anticipated. Saveri, Rheingold, and Vian (2005) explore this new landscape of collaborative tools. They categorize eight clusters of cooperative technology: self-organizing mesh networks, community computing grids, peer production networks, social mobile networks, group-forming networks, social software, social accounting tools, and knowledge collectives. The availability of new technology requires a shift from "designing systems to providing platforms" (p. 2). The power shift moves from organization to individual and from designer to learner. Applications LDC has many applications for designing learning today. Most significant is the ability to combine formal and informal learning. Informal learning is experiencing growing recognition as a critical component of most organizations. PLAR provides a bridging solution for individuals entering a new career, and provides colleges with a mechanism to bridge informal learning with formal learning requirements. Few trends should be of more interest to higher education than the opportunity to integrate corporate education within existing structures and delivery models. It is surprising to note universities and colleges have left the outsourcing trend virtually untouched. Higher education appears to be reluctant to reorganize itself to embrace new climates and environments of learning. Many colleges speak of life-long learning; yet only form relationships with learners for two to four years. The bulk of learning for most people will happen in their work environment. A unique opportunity exists for education providers who are prepared to modify themselves to attend to learner's needs for a lifetime. LDC also creates a tighter link with the natural process of learning and designed learning. As stated previously, informal learning is too significant a concept to be ignored. Integrating alternative views of learning with design broadens the scope of work for many learning designers. The domain of learning designers extends beyond courses and begins to include environments, and self-functioning skills (i.e. how to handle information, how to forage for information, how to think critically, etc.). Ultimately, the learner benefits, as her needs are attended to in greater detail. Concerns Measuring learning (and learning effectiveness) Determining the effectiveness of a course, program, or learning approach can be difficult. Learning is much more than a direct "return on investment" decision. The very nature of learning alters people and organizations, increasing their capacity for competent action. The metrics applied to learning value are unfortunately often linked on a direct "dollars in, dollars out" model. Capacity creation and advanced organizational effectiveness can be overlooked. Learning is not an isolationist activity. When learning is viewed as a network, each node (in this case, employee) that improves its own value (value defined as ability to act in a contextually appropriate manner to a challenge or opportunity and increased relevance to the environment around) creates a ripple effect that impacts other nodes, improving the value of the entire network (or organization). Seen in this manner, measuring learning impact is less about dollars in, and more about increased relevance and competence. The industrial input/output model is a difficult template to place over a knowledge era organization. Measuring learning effectiveness requires a global view of the corporation. The overall ability of an organization to achieve its defined vision is a by-product of the quality of its learning. An organization in a deficit stage of vision achievement will require increased learning. Models for measuring (and capacity to measure) this view of learning are currently lacking. Metrics of industrial era evaluation are still dominant. Why would corporations embrace a model that appears to be open in structure? How do organizations measure the effectiveness of learning in this model? LDC still functions from learning objectives (learning design should certainly be clear, but objectives are not always explicitly stated, or even known in advance of learning), but learning is created as guideposts, not directions. The constructs of the ecology permit individual learners broad movements based on personal interests and motivations (but still within the larger organizational parameters created by the designer to serve a specific outcome). Learner reactions Instructor reactions Conclusion The needs of continual learning, often tightly linked to work, required a new approach and model. LDC has been designed to create an alternative, less-linear view of learning. Learning is the intent of any development activity : communities, courses, networks, or ecology. Selecting the most appropriate design approach will assure greater a more positive and valuable experience for the learner. Taking a panoramic view of learning, and accounting for unique facets and domains, equips a designer with numerous approaches and methods. Instead of only transmitting learning, educators begin to create structures and networks that will foster a lifetime of learning and learning skills. Ultimately, designers continue to play a crucial role in the learning experience. Accounting for varying objects of design (instead of only instruction) creates a tighter integration with the unique nuances of learning today. The monochromatic world of course design is replaced with a vibrant environment where learning occurs in an integrated ecosystem. Learning is a continuous stream, rather than a dammed up reservoir. References Brown, J. S., (undated). Learning in the Digital Age. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Calhoun, G., (undated). Praxis Notes. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Downes, S., (2005). Are the Basics of Instructional Design Changing? Stephen's Web. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Eisner, E. W., (1992). Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York, NY, Macmillan. Frand, F. L., (2000). The Information-Age Mindset. Educause. Retrieved on July 10, 2005 Keller, J., M., (1987). The Systematic Process of Motivational Design. National Society of Performance and Instruction, 26(9) (p. 2). Kemp, J. E., Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., (1994). Designing Effective Instruction. New York, NY, Merrill. McLuhan, M., (1967). The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Corte Madera, CA, Gingko Press. Merrill, D., (1983). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ., Erlbaum. Morville, P. (2004). User Experience Design. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Oblinger, D. (2003). Understanding the New Students. Educause. Retrieved on July 10, 2005 Red River College (2005). Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition. Retrieved on July 11, 2005 Reigeluth, C. M., (1983). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ., Erlbaum. Restak, R. (2003). The new brain: How the Modern Age is Rewiring Your Brain. New York, NY, Rodale. Saskatchewan Education, (undated). Independent Learning. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Saveri, A,. Rheingold, H., Vian, K., (2005). Technologies of Cooperation. Institute for the Future. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Siemens G., ( 2003). Learning Ecologies, Communities, and Networks: Extending the Classroom. elearnspace. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Siemens, G., (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. elearnspace. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Strother, J. B., (2002). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of e-learning in Corporate Training Programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Rapid Instructional Design. Retrieved on July 10, 2005 Wilson, L. O., (1997). Types of Learning. Retrieved on July 9, 2005 Winer, L. R.,
Rushby, N., Vazquez-Abad, J., (1999). Handbook of Human Performance
Technology. San Fransisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. |
||||||
 |
||||||
