Question two: What are the key components that should be considered when designing online learning materials?
As mentioned in my previous blog, ‘Medium or Method?’, common sense would dictate that as tutors we must endeavour to put into place ‘best practice’ design recommendations with a view to facilitating optimal outcomes for students. Research has highlighted a number of key design considerations for traditional tutoring practice, and many of these are mirrored in recommendations for digital learning (Wright, 2010).
A factor of critical importance regardless of teaching
platform is that students
are engaged, as
this fosters motivation, and the likelihood of engagement is increased where
material is relevant to students’ interests and/or needs, and utilises
real-life learning scenarios as far as possible (Barton & Papen, 2005;
Benseman, Sutton, & Lander, 2005; Helsing, Drago-Severson, & Kegan,2004; Jacobson, Degener, & Purcell-Gates, 2003). Fostering inquiry or project-based learning
is also advocated, as is the proactive encouragement of participation and
dialogue, particularly peer-to-peer dialogue (Benseman et al., 2005; Tett & Maclachlan, 2008; Wright, 2010).
 |
| Research recommends collaborative learning and peer-to-peer dialogue (University of Nebraska, n.d.) |
Of worthy note, too, is Kop and Hill’s (2008) assertion that
considerations for teaching should extend even beyond those given above.
The authors believe that, given the information explosion we face as a result
of today’s digital world, it is critical to actively assist students with the
tasks of finding relevant, reliable information and filtering extraneous
information (a consideration touched upon in the light-hearted YouTube clip
below [Yi, 2008]). In relation
to this, it may also be advisable to bear in mind Siemen’s (cited in Chen & Bryer,2002) contention that, as we move into the future, the “capacity to learn” (p.
89) is more critical than what
is learnt.
Digital Literacy in the Google Generation (Yi, 2008)
Accepting the best practice principles recommended by research, what Web 2.0 tools may be best suited for their encapsulation? Mason and Rennie (2008) make a number of suggestions including “online debate, joint creation of a website, group presentations, and peer comments on student work” (p. 15) through “collaborative uses of blogs, wikis, e-portfolios and podcasts” (p. 15). Many options exist, and Sanders (2006) gives the sensible advice that we should start with consideration of required content, and design of engaging construction, then look for tools to facilitate lesson planning. With that as our starting point it may become obvious which are the best tools for a particular lesson.
However despite the wide range of applications afforded by
digital means, it should be cautioned that research recommends that where possible digital
technology complements, rather than replaces, face-to-face learning (Conole, 2010; Damoense, 2003). This may be especially pertinent to ACE
students, who often need a nurturing learning environment that is non-threatening,
supportive and constructive (Ako Aotearoa, 2012; Dymock, 2007) – an environment
more difficult to establish without significant personal contact.
In addition, while Kop and Hill (2008) predict a pedagogical
shift occurring where “[l]earners will be at the centre of the learning
experience, rather than the tutor and institution” (p. 9) they also state that confidence,
learner autonomy, and discipline are critical foundations for successful online learning. Given the embryonic state of these qualities
in beginning LLN learners, I feel it is crucial as an ACE tutor to design lessons
that lean more toward instruction than facilitation.
Consequently, in Ally’s (2009) summary of the learning implications of the main educational philosophies, I found his recommendations for the cognitive-based model (pages 10 to 13) most relevant for ACE students. These recommendations include clear course outline with structured learning steps, the use of advance organisers to link students’ existing knowledge to new concepts, the use of content/concept maps to provide a cohesive overview, and students’ creation of mindmaps or similar to engender reflection and comprehension. Combining Ally’s (2009) suggestions with a lesson designed to encourage group participation in a non-competitive environment would, I believe, embrace a number of best learning practices for second-chance learners.
Consequently, in Ally’s (2009) summary of the learning implications of the main educational philosophies, I found his recommendations for the cognitive-based model (pages 10 to 13) most relevant for ACE students. These recommendations include clear course outline with structured learning steps, the use of advance organisers to link students’ existing knowledge to new concepts, the use of content/concept maps to provide a cohesive overview, and students’ creation of mindmaps or similar to engender reflection and comprehension. Combining Ally’s (2009) suggestions with a lesson designed to encourage group participation in a non-competitive environment would, I believe, embrace a number of best learning practices for second-chance learners.
