Incorporating Toolbox Development with Learner-Centric Design.
Abstract
This paper discusses theories and issues pertinent to the development of technology intensive tools to support the blended learning environment with a view to maintaining learner-centricity, through the adaptation of an existing toolbox. The processes outlined within can be used by other educational institutions in the adaptation and formulation of their own elearning tools, in keeping with the advantages and constraints of focusing on the learner, and using technology.
Acknowledgements
On behalf of the Anutech LSO-CD project team I would like to thank:
Janice Wain of CIT's Toolbox development team, for introducing us to the varied wonders of the existing toolboxes.
Dr Chris Trevitt, Senior Lecturer with the Australian National University's Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, for mentoring our project team through the wonders of instructional design.
Claude Pogliani and Greg Seberry, Learnscope coordinators for the Australian Capital Territory, for their guidance, patience and overall support through the Learnscope project framework.
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction
Initially this discussion paper was going to be simply about the adaptation of an existing toolbox resource. Being able to inform the broader learning community of how to get the most out of such resources seemed to be a noble and grand thing in itself. However two things have changed the viewpoint presented in this paper. First is the concept and ideals of the practice of learner-centricity. Second are the constraints of being a human being, a professional educator, and part of a small project team, whilst also being a part-time student.
The toolboxes that exist currently are really valuable tools. They will never replace the human trainer, despite the fact that research is underway in the United States to develop an Artificial Intelligence (AI) trainer. As all trainers know, there is more to training than simply presenting information. Training is about creating an environment that is a mix of many things; positive and negative reinforcement (hopefully more positive), reassurance, encouragement, assistance, guidance, etc. A CD or website can form part of that environment, but it is not the environment by itself. What we deliver and how we deliver it is affected by numerous issues and theories.
Learner-centricity brings a whole bundle of other issues to the table. Focusing upon the learner, what they want to learn, and enabling them to learn it when and where they want, through a methodology or medium of their preference. This is good and bad for toolbox development. It means we cannot discard tools such as toolboxes, but nor can we rely upon them.
Developing toolboxes and their content is a full-on task. Most training professionals are busy enough with class scheduling, assessments and maintaining their own lives and sense of sanity. Often development of such resources is left to professionals who are out of the classroom, working specifically to develop learning resources. Plus with large areas of overlap in course content and competencies, it becomes inefficient and expensive for training institutions of all levels to develop their own specific content for all of their courses. If such resources come at such a premium to an organization, the adoption of the resources is unlikely. How do we adopt these tools in an efficient and effective manner?
Toolboxes are part of the right mix for modern learning. However they are only a small part of the mix. Like every other mode and methodology, they need to be employed in the right way at the right time, with the individual learner. To cater to every individual learner fully still remains an unachievable goal, but catering to the vast majority of learners through the sharing of efforts would appear to be the smart way of doing things.
Chapter Two: Learning Theories and Resources
Idiosyncratic Learning
The purpose of a toolbox requires that it caters to the broadest cross section of students and learning styles possible. If it doesn't, then its potential for success as a learning tool is somewhat degraded. If students can not identify at least some parts of the product that suit their learning style, they are less likely to use the product, regardless of what their trainers say. Simulations, discussion forums and structured information are three separate types of information presentation and training, that can be delivered within an electronic format, and cater to different learning styles, and different situations.
Simulations, which can extend to case studies, aim to recreate the reality of the work environment. For particular training elements that require hands on work, this is not entirely suitable because the screen in front of the student is limited with respect to what it can recreate. Take for example the use of online and computer based training in the military. Simulating the use of a particular weapon, or training in the hands on techniques of martial arts or first aid can not be effectively done in a regular computing environment. Expensive equipment and possibly multiple computers would be required per user. On the other hand, strategic planning and tactical battlefield maneuvers can be modeled in a relatively inexpensive computerized environment, as is often seen in many computer games.
For certain simulation scenarios, particularly case study based activities, the online environment has the ability to facilitate and increase the effectiveness of team work. This is largely because the environment simply becomes a tool for finding and disseminating information amongst the group. This can also be said of discussion forums and chat rooms.
Forums and chat rooms are unlikely to be an effective part of the structured class room, due to the lack of direct contact. They are often best employed outside of the class room, at a time and place of the student's choosing, allowing the student to participate and give of themselves freely. The question then becomes how you ensure such a resource is utilized properly and not taken advantage of, or its purpose corrupted by one or two users. Do you have a staff member always online? Do you restrict the hours that such resources can be used? Do you have the system log everything that each user does or says within the forum? Unless such tools are being used on a large scale, the first and third options are expensive in terms of human resources and infrastructure, and recording what people say to one another also invokes certain legal issues. Restricting when the resources can be used reduces the flexibility of the tool, and possibly the value of it to certain users, though a judicious and discreet application of such restrictions could still allow such tools to benefit the vast majority of users.
The delivery of structured information is one area of learning which stands to gain greatly from delivery via online and electronic systems. In the hands of the wrong trainer, structured information is a dull and boring death-by-overhead presentation. Chances are everyone at some stage has received this kind of instruction; turn up at a particular time and place, listen to a particular person present information from a particular book, in the same set format and order as last time. From my own experience and that of other trainers I know, structured information can also be a bad experience for the trainer. Because the students resent the "force-feeding" of information and many dislike the format in which it is disseminated, their interaction with their trainer can be somewhat tainted. It is often worse if you are facilitating an evening session, where the majority of the class have spent the day at work and are tired.
Electronic and online tools provide several improvements for the delivery of structure information. Students can consume the information at their own pace, and at a time in the day that suits them and their lifestyle. There are two other advantages to be found in the use of online and electronic tools: the ability to dress-up the presentation, and the reassurance that all students are being presented with exactly the same information.
The Trainer vs the AI-Trainer
For many years now, researchers have been studying the development and applications of artificial intelligence (AI). In recent times, particularly because of popularization through media and movies, such as the Wachowski brother's Matrix trilogy and the Terminator trilogy, AI has become a "sexier" subject area. If the predictions and musings of people such as Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems are close to the mark, AI will play a huge yet unqualified role in our society within the next 30 years.
However AI is not ready for deployment to the classroom at the moment. So why mention it at all? Because even if we could build a machine that had the requisite intelligence to be able to teach and train students, it would probably still suffer from the same drawbacks that existing training and teaching systems suffer from.
On the other hand, AI is something that we need to become more aware of. As it improves, the differences between the delivery of information by a human and by a machine will decrease. We will need to be acutely aware of what it is that sets us apart from a machine. Although AI in the learning environment may be years off, if we are to correctly employ elearning and online tools in the class room today, we still need to have the same awareness of what sets a human trainer apart from an elearning tool. Armed with such knowledge we can better deploy both human and electronic learning resources to support students.
The Blended Learning Environment: Supplementation not Succession
Hofmann is correct in stating that "What can be taught online?" is the wrong question. However she is looking at producing the right mix of synchronous and asynchronous learning activities with respect to available technology. This is a bit of a narrow viewpoint. The better question to ask is: "What content can a human deliver better than a machine and what can a machine deliver better than a human?"
The training systems that we work with are built for humans by humans. Machines can not control such systems for us, though they can be used to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our teaching and training systems. Many courses exist totally online or totally on CD, or can be delivered totally by some electronic means. From the limited evidence that exists, it would appear that such systems are no more successful at delivering information and training than traditional learning systems. It is certain though, that elearning systems do provide other benefits in terms of flexibility and cost. If they do not increase the success of the students using them, are they really of value?
The fact that students can and do still fail courses delivered in an elearning framework indicates that elearning is not the entire answer. Hence the need to focus upon using elearning tools to supplement and complement existing learning systems, rather than replacing traditional systems totally. The development of elearning resources for the blended environment will only succeed if the resources amplify the efforts of existing systems rather than replacing them.
Other arguments against reliance upon elearning tools exist. elearning tools are just that - tools, not content. They support communication and facilitate the learning process, but they are not the learning process itself. Another important thing to consider with elearning tools is how much progress can a student make if the power is out, or the batteries run dead?
Chapter Three: Learner-Centricity - A New Aspect
Learner-centricity? What is that?
Often, as this paper itself is guilty of until this paragraph, discussion about elearning tools focuses upon what tools to use, what technology is required and how effective and efficient they will be in the long run. The paradigm of learner-centricity has a different focus. It simply puts the question of what is best for the learner ahead of all other considerations.
Does it make sense? Of course it does. Learning has to be about the learners and focusing upon their needs. Rather than focusing upon cheaper learning systems, or mass-learning systems, we should leverage the advantages offered by elearning tools in conjunction with traditional learning systems to provide greater flexibility and customization to the needs of individual learners. The learner needs to be the centre of this activity, with the primary delivery being controlled through a human trainer. But trainers can not provide the perfect mode of delivery for each individual student. Trainers are restricted by the time that they have in contact with their students and their own skills and delivery preferences. Hence the gap where elearning tools can help to meet the needs of the le4raner better exist in providing the same and supporting content through alternate modes of delivery, wrapped in the flexibility of the student covering the content at a time and place of their own choosing.
Implications for Development of Resources
To this end, resource development must aim to supplement the traditional system, not to replace them entirely. Like trainers in the classroom, elearning resources suffer their own set of limitations and constraints. Greater value can be achieved through combining the two to nullify the weaknesses of each.
More importantly though, the needs of the learner must come first. Development of a learning system needs to be holistic, to ensure that there are no gaps. Either the trainer in the class room is responsible for covering part of the delivery, or the elearning tools are responsible for it. However this is not always possible, given that many institutions do not have the resources to develop elearning tools such as toolboxes specifically for their own courses. If a toolbox is to be of value to the education community as a whole, it must cover as much content and as many delivery modes as possible, and it must be adaptable. If it is then individual institutions can tailor its deployment alongside trainers to fit their student's needs, at a reasonable cost.
Implications for Trainers
Trainers need to accept these new tools and embrace their use. Trainers who can not or will not use such tools will not be able to offer their students the same benefits as those who can. Similarly, trainers who rely solely upon toolboxes and other elearning tools without putting themselves into the mix will again be withholding something of value to their students.
Chapter Four: Sharing Resources
Tools fit for Sharing
As pointed out previously, if institutions are to make the most of these new tools, they need to be able to adapt them to their student's needs and the environment in which the delivery is occurring. Part of the challenge for the Anutech Learnscope team has been to understand what constitutes an existing toolbox, and determining how to best set about adapting it for deployment specifically in Anutech's environment.
One resource that the team has yet to find is a guide for this adaptation process. To this end we would like to provide our own list of steps as a beginning point for any other institution wishing to adapt any elearning tool.
Adapting the Humble Toolbox
1. Analyse existing toolbox content against content of course:
a. compare competencies
b. what is surplus, and what is missing
c. may require the comparison of elements in similar competencies
2. Analyse listed competency-assessment or competency-phase links to determine which general parts of the toolbox are relevant, and which activities and phases need adjusting.
3. If matching a toolbox to a module of a course, and several units of competency from the toolbox are involved in other modules of the course, but not the module that the toolbox is being adapted for, consider alterations to the design of the course.
4. Analyse the modes of delivery provided by the toolbox. Do they complement, conflict or replace the modes that your training staff and environment already cover, and do they help meet the needs of the majority of your students?
5. Determine and develop specifications for, the competencies that still need to be fitted in.
a. Number
b. Unit of competency
c. Nominal hours
d. Phase(s)
e. Activities
6. With the activities that are being carried over, can they be kept as is, or do they require adapting to a new context? Determine which activities can remain with their scenarios as is, and which need to be adapted.
7. The activities of the product are broken into phases - are phases the correct ideology/breakdown for our course or does this need to be reorganized???
8. Determine new activities.
9. Choose an appropriate and realistic scenario for the students to follow which will encapsulate the activities that they need to practice, thereby incorporating realism.
10. Develop scenario.
11. Develop and adjust activities, ensuring that they fit industry requirements, competency requirements.
12. Adjust scenario to accommodate differences with activites.
Chapter Five: Conclusion
Lessons Learnt
There have been two essential lessons that the Anutech team has learnt through this process.
a. It is an expensive process. Do it well and it should bring in returns over time.
b. If you require outside assistance, organize it early.
Recommendations
Many of the more recent toolboxes are quality products. They provide the flexibility for trainers to focus on students needs whilst extending the modes and timing of delivery.
If you don't have the technical skills to adapt a toolbox with new or extra modes of delivery, start by simply adapting the content that it presents within the modes that it already uses.
References:
Trevitt, Dr. Chris. Conversations and mentoring on Instructional Design, CEDAM, ANU, 2003.
Feasey, Dave. "elearning". http://eyepopping.manilasites.com/disciplines/elearning/
- 17/10/2003.
De Villiers, Mary Ruth. "The Dynamic Theory and Practice in Instructional Systems Design". University of Pretoria, 2002.
Siemens, George. "elearnspace". http://www.elearnspace.org - 28/10/03.
Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us", Wired Magazine. Issue 8.04, April 2000.
Hofmann, Jennifer. "Managing the Synchronous Blend", Learning Circuits. http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/oct2003/hofmann.htm - 31/10/2003
Michael Lane, BA, MCP
Vocational Education & Training Programs
Anutech Education Centre
