When last we discussed learning and learners, I had suggested that individual differences should be taken into account when designing learning. I will be the first to acknowledge that this is not an easy task. In addition to trying to determine what differences should be of concern, there are the minor issues of how to do that and then what to do about it. The answer may depend on how you define e-learning; as a standalone lesson (what was once called CBT when the language for this was clearer), or as an interactive on-line experience directed by a teacher (what now happens in a distance learning classroom).
There is several topics here, but for the moment I would like to focus on learners. I would like to cite some research and some anecdotal reporting to point out some of what can happen when instruction ignores the learners.
When I was preparing the research project that would be at the core of my dissertation the question arose as to which class I was going to study. My hypothesis was that an electronic classroom formed a system with three interactive elements, the students and their attitude toward instruction and information presentation, the teacher and his/her attitude toward interactive instruction and information presentation, and the on-line venue itself, and how it presented course content and allowed student interactions. After consulting with the faculty member whose class I would study it was determined that an advanced class in the program would be the best, since it presented the most stable group of students. The first class in the program sequence was disparaged since it had too much churn and I would have a problem keeping my research subjects for the duration of the semester.
The research methodology consisted of some personality and learning style instruments, along with an analysis of the class material and the content of the class discussions. What became clear over the course of the study was that the personalities of the participants were remarkably similar. The test instruments revealed that all had very similar learning styles and personalities. They all viewed the material in much the same way (as determined by interview) and all interacted on-line in remarkably similar ways. As both an on-line instructor and as a student in on-line classes this seemed very odd. Usually classes had a mix of personalities and styles. It was so odd that I began to question my methodology.
After reviewing most of what I had done with my advisor the second hypotheses (one waiting to be tested at length) was that students who liked the course and program as it existed had self-selected themselves to continue. Those who did not like on-line learning, or who disliked the presentation itself, were what constituted the churn in the early classes in the program.
In a discussion with my advisor we spoke of an accounting program that was having a problem with student involvement in the more advanced courses in the program. The program was designed to be weighted toward teaching the fundamentals of accounting in the early classes, with the more advanced classes held for years 3 and 4. There was nothing earth-shaking here, except that the advanced classes addressed topics like entrepreneurship, a subject required a measure of creativity. Class involvement was difficult at best and few students had anything to say. In analyzing the registration for the program it was determined that the focus on bean-counting fundamentals in the early classes in the program caused the more creative students to drop out and find another major. When the program was revised to address the interests of these students early on, the overall effect was one that provided a balance that benefitted everyone in the program.
So, to return to the question that started this discussion, the risk involved with creating e-learning that does not take into account learner differences is that we create a recursive e-learning that some people benefit from, and others do not. Who are they? What do they contribute? While e-learning may benefit the bottom line of the training department, it may not benefit the bottom line of the corporation.
R
No comments:
Post a Comment