Application: Blog—Selecting Distance Learning Technologies

I am in the third week of my Distance Learning course at Walden University as part of my MS in Instructional Design and Technology and have been asked to look into an opportunity to use distance learning technology to fit the needs of a specific learning context in a particular scenario. The scenario I chose is presented below and I will present a short narrative explaining a possible technology tool that will present a training or educational solution to the scenario.

Example 3: Asynchronous Training
In an effort to improve its poor safety record, a biodiesel manufacturing plant
needs a series of safety training modules. These stand-alone modules must
illustrate best practices on how to safely operate the many pieces of heavy
machinery on the plant floor. The modules should involve step-by-step processes
and the method of delivery needs to be available to all shifts at the plant. As
well, the shift supervisors want to be sure the employees are engaged and can
demonstrate their learning from the modules. (Walden University, 2010).

In researching possible solutions for this scenario I chose to use Moodle.com as a distance learning tool that would present a potential learning solution through technology. This Course Management System (CMS) is a great example of a CMS that has the capabilities that allows designers to create and install pedagogical content, whether it is a teacher or other technical staff member as the designer (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009, p. 239). Moodle can be used to design stand-alone modules intended to address a variety of educational solutions. In this case, How to operate vital pieces of equipment within a business’ safely or according to prescribed safety protocols. In this scenario there is an obvious need for an asynchronous environment that will allow multiple shifts to access the training module(s).

Moodle.com is an open source CMS that “can increase real-time collaboration between learners, especially in courses that are fully asynchronous” (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 143). For this solution system, it is vital to have various components in place to include but is not restricted to course management elements like syllabi, calendars, announcements, various instructions, objectives, rosters, and gradebooks (Simonson, et al., 2009). To further enhance the experience, the solution should include course readings, presentations, communications, project space, assessments, assignment submissions, evaluation, and any of the various Web 2.0 tools currently available(Simonson, et al., 2009). In doing so Moodle.com satisfies any and all of these requirements by allowing designers to create “activity modules (such as forums, databases and wikis) to build richly collaborative communities of learning around their subject matter (in the social constructionist tradition)” or simply to present content and traditionally “assess learning using assignments or quizzes” (http://moodle.org/about/). In utilizing Web 2.0 technology available in the design of a Moodle site, designers can facilitate “high levels of student Intellectual engagement – with content, with their instructors, and with each other – that hallmark the learner-centered instructional paradigm (Simonson, et al., 2009, p. 244). Ultimately, “collaboration in either asynchronous or synchronous learning environments allows learners to practice real-world skills that are applicable to the workplace” and for this scenario I believe Moodle can provide this (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 144).

In order to further support my assertion that Moodle would be a viable CMS solution for training/educating employees on safe equipment operation protocols I offer up testimonials, critiques, or reviews of Moodle in the real world. For example, arguably Moodle is user friendly with “lots of functionality” and it has “instructor control over look and features available within a course” (Taylor, 2006). Another positive aspect of Moodle illustrates how “novice users can spend two hours or less and have their Moodle classroom sites up and running with ease—including modifying the site colors, educational modules, navigation systems, and features” (Driscoll). In another review of Moodle it was illustrated in an online English as a Second Language course in Japan, it was noted that “the lesson module allows you to provide information to the students in small chunks, ask a comprehension question about what they have just learned and then conditionally branch out depending on their response” (Robb, 2004).

On a personal note I have used Moodle to take part in an asynchronous learning module for the school district I work for. In this learning module intended to introduce the faculty countywide district to an new initiative to be implemented in the schools, we were asked to navigate through various readings and simulations then take a series of quizzes, which we had opportunities to fix our mistakes and resubmit our answers. All of which was time stamped for the administrators to track student participation time and time spent on tasks. Not only were we exposed to a real time example of the initiative but we were assessed on the knowledge gained in doing so and through various reading selections. In fact there was a final exam that assessed the outcomes in comparison to the learning objectives of the exercise. Simply because of this personal experience and the evidence presented in this posting, I would advocate the use of Moodle to design a learning solution in a this CMS or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) to provide an asynchronous learning situation for the target audience.

References:

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2),139–153.

Driscoll, D.L., Message posted to Review of Moodle Course Management System. Archived at
http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/Web_2_0_Reviews/Moodle_Driscoll/practicality.html

Robb, T.,( September 2004). Moodle: a virtual learning environment for the rest of us. Message posted to TESL-EJ, Teaching English as a Second Language or Foreign Language, archived at http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/m2.html

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Taylor, V., (2006). Moodle - faculty review. Retrieved September 26, 2010, from
http://faculty.deanza.edu/taylorvalerie/stories/storyReader$489

What is Moodle? (2010). Retrieved from http://moodle.org/about/

Walden University. (2010). Application: Blog—Selecting Distance Learning Technologies. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4442081&Survey=1&47=6201564&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Distance Learning Mind Map

Definitions of Distance Learning:

In my own experience with distance learning I have come up a couple of personal definitions and have also learned a few textbook definitions over the course of the last five years. However, since the realm of distance learning is constantly evolving so to should the definitions, be based on personal experience or observation or even accepted textbook definitions. I believe distance learning is and always will evolve as technology continues to improve. Who knows, distance learning might even become a virtual 3-D experience like you would see on the holodeck of the Starship Enterprise.

In the past I would strictly describe distance learning only as “online” coursework, utilizing the internet or some form of intranet, in order to garner some required knowledge as an employee or as a student in a collegiate endeavor. As a high school teacher I have witnessed distance learning in my school applied as a means of credit recovery for those students that have not performed well in a traditional classroom, specifically to insure the student another avenue to a high school diploma, while not dropping out of school. Forming another part of my personal definition of distance learning, in the past (prior to me starting my Masters degree online) I knew people who worked toward advanced degrees through online programs or hybrid programs. This avenue provided (as it does me) greater flexibility around family and occupational obligations, as well as the restrictive nature of not being close to a physical institution of higher learning. My perception of distance learning has been influenced by what I have witnessed, but as I work in my own program of MS in Instructional Design and Technology, my definition is ever evolving.

Coincidently, as I progress further into the realm of distance learning, either as a student or as a traditional classroom instructor watching students engage in distance learning, I have learned more of the medium. For example, in the past, a simple textbook definition of distance learning would have been an “institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, resources, and instructors” (as cited in Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009, p. 32). The aforementioned textbook definition, fully encompasses what I traditionally saw as distance learning defined, but as I learn more of the medium I am gradually changing my definition to include informal training situations within corporations using the medium to provide training for their employees in a multitude of subjects and content areas as a cost effective and flexible means while not losing productivity. In other words, many companies offer “timely on- demand learning access impossible in a traditional training center” (Moller, Forshay, & Huett, May/June 2008, p. 70). Another reality of my own personal definition includes the fact for all of this to occur, in the majority of cases distance learning will most certainly be conducted in an asynchronous environment.

As we progress and evolve in the medium of online or distance learning, I see a growing need for different skill sets to achieve and be successful. This may not be true with some people of the digital generation, but these people in particular will need to remain focused on time management skills, alternative communication means, while maintaining an academic standard (like the idea of professionalism), and learning and developing skills for utilizing e-learning resources. Technology will always change, but people, whether they are the student or the teacher will need to change and evolve as the medium of distance learning continues to change due to technology. In an e-learning environment student and teachers (Instructional Designers – ID’s) will all need to focus on “cognitive processes of knowledge building and problem solving” within a distance learning method, regardless of the technology advances themselves (Moller, Forshay, & Huett, May/June 2008, p. 74). I see distance learning growing based on the collaborative nature of the process and method and advances the theory of constructivism in the educational world.

In conclusion, the future of distance learning, online learning, or e-learning must continue to strive towards not only improving the delivery system, but the students, teachers, ID’s, administrators, institutions, and corporations must employ sound educational practices with standards and accountability. Without trained professionals developing and administering the medium and fully prepared students or employees seeking the medium out, distance learning will never see its’ full potential.

Reference,

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008B). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 1: Training and development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70–75.

Simonsen, N., Smaldino, S., Albright, N., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Personal Reflections on Learning Theories and Instruction

The one thing about this course that presented the greatest benefit to me would have been the Learning Theory Matrix each of us had to complete. This application process, which utilized many facets of the course’s “problem solving”, exercises included research, technology, and application of the learning theories, which provided a truly engaging learning exercise. With this exercise alone I have developed a new appreciation for the diversity of the learning styles and models employed to affect the learner. Also, in researching the styles and theories I have also gained an appreciation for the necessity of so many explanations for how and why people learn. Further, I believe that in learning the separate ideas will allow an ID to employ the various combinations the design an extremely effective model(s) to a diverse group of learners. In fact, I believe the diversity of the theories is necessary, but as diverse as they are, each of the theories builds on one another as well. In each of the theories, in fact, one can find elements of each of the” independent” learning theories and each of the strategies to help develop a more holistic approach to designing instruction.

To compliment the greater understanding of the styles and theories, I was also, able to analyze my own personal traits when it comes to how and why I learn. I have always thought of myself in a one dimensional context when it comes to my own learning style. I always equated my learning in a very active manner, in other words I have labeled myself as a kinesthetic learner. However, I have redefined my learning style to include the constructivist theory, because I “become actively involved with the content through manipulation of materials and social interaction” (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009, p. 185). In fact, I as “the learner needs to be provided the means to create novel and situation-specific understandings by ‘assembling’ prior knowledge from diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 63). In this course, I have learned a great deal by not only completing the tasks of each week, but the discussions, and the application of previous experiences as well. In addition, I have also benefitted greatly from elements from the other theories/disciplines like external motivation in the form of feedback from peers and the instructor, as well as elements of the connectivist theory and the adult learning theory. For example, utilizing technology developing a social learning environment, having self-determination, regulating my own learning within a structure, and so on illustrate the elements of the other theories I use to learn.

Throughout the progression of the research I engaged in during my current Instructional Design course, I have altered my own conclusions of the importance placed on the individual learning styles and theories. These changes can be easily summed up by my belief that no one method or model can stand alone. For effective learning to occur the diversity of the target audience must be matched with the diversity of delivery models to fully target the individuality of the learners. Finding the best balance between various elements of each of the delivery models is the key to designing instruction in today’s highly technological and connected world, where people are more likely to learn in an environment that they have some control and both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators pushing them to learn. In other words, designing instruction utilizing the best delivery models that positively affect a learner’s motivational traits, including “the need for affiliation, approval, and achievement” will provide the best opportunities for the learner (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009, p. 241).

In conclusion, the use of technology as a method to deliver instruction or simply to enhance it is ultimately the end game of current Instructional Designers. In completing a course on learning theories, I now have a better perspective in evaluating and analyzing not only content to be delivered, but how best to deliver it. The use of multiple delivery models while adapting the model to affect the various styles is validation that a holistic approach to “teaching” or curricular design is the best for the learner, which is the goal of any designer “worth their salt.”

References:

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T, J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical
features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning Theories and Instruction (Laureate custom
edition). New York, NY: Pearson.

Current Reflection on My Own Learning Style

In the following text there will be a re-examination of my learning style and a deeper reflection on the various learning theories commonly accepted within educational circles. Recently, as an assignment for a current online class I was asked to reflect on, evaluate, and describe the learning style I closely associate myself with, based on these learning theories. Now that I have more closely examined some of the vast oceans of research advanced by just as many “experts” I will be able to shed some more light on my own assumptions.

First, I am asked to explore how I have changed my opinion of my own learning style based on the research I have done in my recent coursework. In fact, I haven’t changed my beliefs that I follow the constructivist learning theory with an emphasis on a kinesthetic learning style. Further, the research I have done only reaffirms this belief, because not only do people use their minds to learn, but also they take this component and interact with experience(s) to create deeper and more meaningful learning (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 62). Also, the definition of constructivism proposed by Ertmer and Newby (1993) “equates learning with creating meaning from experience.” In addition to the theory I align myself with, I consider myself a kinesthetic learner, which literally means I learn best by doing. To further strengthen my own learning, modeling, a component of social learning theory, adds to my own success. These elements provide me with the opportunity to observe, interact, practice, inject prior knowledge, and apply what I have constructed as meaning in learning, to new learning situations. Finally, I believe, “experiences enable learners to create schemas – models in their heads that are continually changed, enlarged, and made more sophisticated” through actively engaging in new learning situations (Clark, 1999).

Now the question is, how does technology play a role in my learning? First I would say that the computer is the primary way technology figures into my learning, for obvious reasons, especially evident in the use of the forum (blog). However, not only am I utilizing the computer for an online course, but also I have used the various software elements, and web based elements as well. For example, not only do I have this blog, but I also have used the basic elements of word processing and power points and any skill set associated with their use. Further, I have had to become acquainted with the vast pool of knowledge and resources provided through my online college library, but the public browser options as well. With an instructor acting as a facilitator (providing some structure) I have become an active learner engaged in creating meaning within the requisites of the current course I am navigating.

I truly am “constructing” my learning through active engagement and creating meaning to be applied now and for later learning situations. In fact, constructivists assume that instructors should “structure situations such that learners become actively involved with the content through manipulation of materials and social interaction” (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009, p. 185).

References:

Clark, D., (December 1, 1999). A Time Capsule of Training and Learning. Retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history.html

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T, J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning Theories and Instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York, NY: Pearson.

Connectivism

Connectivism: My Mind Map

The underlying theme of connectivism as a learning theory is how we as learners “connect” with our learning and how we make “connections” in order to learn. At least this is my interpretation of the general definition of the theory, which actually states according to George Siemens “ connectivism integrates technology, social networking, and information” (Siemens, 2009). In fact, expanding on this definition Siemens also defines “connectivism as the combined effect of chaos theory, importance of networks, and the interplay of complexity and self-organization” (Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Batemen, V., 2008). The idea of this mind map exercise is the literal illustration of the last component--self-organization.

To make a connection between the theory of connectivism and adult learning, I would also add that for a mind map to even exist, we as adult learners must have self directed learning and be intrinsically motivated. In fact, “self-directed learning is defined as the process in which individuals take on the responsibility for their own learning process by diagnosing their personal learning needs, setting goals, identifying resources, implementing strategies and evaluating outcomes” (Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K., 2003). Mind mapping can easily fit into the components of this definition by providing the “map” of our own needs, resources, and strategies to our self directed learning.

Connectivism by George Siemens’ definition is complex due to an abundance of information and the primary use of technology as the method to acquire knowledge and to learn (Siemens, 2009). However, I believe this complexity is an evolving process that I am aspiring to, as evident in the simplicity of my own mind map seen here on this page (Posted December 2,2009). I am usually a person who likes to keep things simple by my own design, in order to limit my own potential confusion in acquiring knowledge. This might be attributed to my self-declared dominant learning style, which I consider myself to be a very kinesthetic learner. In fact, I learn best by doing and manipulating the environment to my own discretion to meet my needs at any given moment. For example, I recently had to fix my dishwasher and to do so I had to first diagnose the problem and find the correct part, so I “Googled” it. In doing so, I was able to learn enough from technical drawings and other resource sites about the above-mentioned process to feel confident enough to fix it myself. Long story short I fixed my dishwasher (for a third of the cost of a repairman) going through everything I have mentioned in this posting, utilizing adult learning theory and connectivism to accomplish my goal of fixing the dishwasher.

References:

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved on November 30, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning.

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved on November 30, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism

Siemens, George. (2009) “Connectivism”. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved Dec 2, 2009. [Transcript}