From what I absorbed from the lecture and readings, I think the purpose of this week's lecture is to let us appreciate the value ofi) Learning Design and ii) having a standard framework with which educators can use to represent their learning designs.
Since it is firstly very important to understand the benefits of Learning Design, I drew up a Figure which represents the value of designing for learning (refer to Figure 1 on the left).
Basically, educators use the resulting Learning Design (after much thought and planning) to create the Learning Experience that learners need, to achieve the planned Learning Outcomes.
A good Learning Design should take into consideration the following:
i) learners' prior knowlegdge, motivation and expectations to build upon
ii) learning context e.g. where the learning is taking place, preferred pedagogical approach, etc
iii) available instituitional software and e-tools
Obviously, there are many other aspects to be factored into the construction of the learning design but the above 3 are what I feel are the main important considerations. They are simple to understand yet essential to be a starting point in the planning of a learning design.
Basically, educators use the resulting Learning Design (after much thought and planning) to create the Learning Experience that learners need, to achieve the planned Learning Outcomes.
A good Learning Design should take into consideration the following:
i) learners' prior knowlegdge, motivation and expectations to build upon
ii) learning context e.g. where the learning is taking place, preferred pedagogical approach, etc
iii) available instituitional software and e-tools
Obviously, there are many other aspects to be factored into the construction of the learning design but the above 3 are what I feel are the main important considerations. They are simple to understand yet essential to be a starting point in the planning of a learning design.
So, since there are so many considerations in a learning design, obviously different educators in different educational institutes that subscribe to different pedagogical approaches will come up with many different learning designs right? How then do we compare and evaluate the various learning designs?
Thank God (or rather, thank Herrington) for his Learning Design Framework. Herrington's Learning Design Sequence or framework, which I prefer to call it, provides a standardized way of representing the learning design that educators all over the world come up with. This is how the framework is implemented:
Rectangles - represent learning activities i.e. what learners are required to do or produce
Triangles - represent learning resources e.g. information sources and learning materials
Circles - represent learning supports which provide feedback to learners; communication is a critical aspect of learning supports
The direction in which the arrow is drawn from a rectangle to a triangle bears certain meanings. An arrow from a triangle to the rectangle implies that the learning resource is there as an input to the learning activity. An arrow from a rectangle to the triangle implies that a learning resource is produced from that learning activity.
A learning design can usually be split into the left, center and middle column. Triangles are placed on the left, rectangles in the center and circles are at the right column.
Ok, having completed the discussion of the 2 main learning objectives which I picked out, I would like to comment on the learning design focus/learning activity techniques by Oliver and Tegiar respectively. You can refer to pg. 68 of Oliver reading and pg. 96 of Tegiar reading to roughly know what I'm referring to.
The learning design focus (rule-based, incident-based, strategy-based and role-based) offered by Oliver is based on the Jonassen (2000) taxonomy of problems. I find the classification that Oliver uses confusing and contradictory to Jonassen's taxonomy.
For example, under rule-based designs, Oliver quotes an example of a CD-ROM tool that assists medical students with clinical communication to identify patients' problems. Rule-based designs should be based more on algorithmic problems rather than case method problems (e.g. clinical cases as stated in the Week 2 lecture notes)
Another point that Oliver makes is that role-based design is higher in complexity than strategy-based design. I disagree on this point becuase I feel strategy-based design should rank as the highest in complexity. My opinion is also backed up in Jonassen's taxonomy which ranks issue-based problems as the most complex and should utilize the strategy-based design (because according to Oliver, it is for complex, ill-defined tasks with decision-making).
On the otherhand, Tegiar's classification of learning activity techniques - assimilative information handling, adaptive, communicative, productive and experiential - is a more accurate and clear-cut categorization that is easier to follow and agree on.
So this is my input for Week 4. Looking forward to being able to apply the learning design in tutorials and seeing how it relates to future topics on E-learning!
Thank God (or rather, thank Herrington) for his Learning Design Framework. Herrington's Learning Design Sequence or framework, which I prefer to call it, provides a standardized way of representing the learning design that educators all over the world come up with. This is how the framework is implemented:
Rectangles - represent learning activities i.e. what learners are required to do or produce
Triangles - represent learning resources e.g. information sources and learning materials
Circles - represent learning supports which provide feedback to learners; communication is a critical aspect of learning supports
The direction in which the arrow is drawn from a rectangle to a triangle bears certain meanings. An arrow from a triangle to the rectangle implies that the learning resource is there as an input to the learning activity. An arrow from a rectangle to the triangle implies that a learning resource is produced from that learning activity.
A learning design can usually be split into the left, center and middle column. Triangles are placed on the left, rectangles in the center and circles are at the right column.
Ok, having completed the discussion of the 2 main learning objectives which I picked out, I would like to comment on the learning design focus/learning activity techniques by Oliver and Tegiar respectively. You can refer to pg. 68 of Oliver reading and pg. 96 of Tegiar reading to roughly know what I'm referring to.
The learning design focus (rule-based, incident-based, strategy-based and role-based) offered by Oliver is based on the Jonassen (2000) taxonomy of problems. I find the classification that Oliver uses confusing and contradictory to Jonassen's taxonomy.
For example, under rule-based designs, Oliver quotes an example of a CD-ROM tool that assists medical students with clinical communication to identify patients' problems. Rule-based designs should be based more on algorithmic problems rather than case method problems (e.g. clinical cases as stated in the Week 2 lecture notes)
Another point that Oliver makes is that role-based design is higher in complexity than strategy-based design. I disagree on this point becuase I feel strategy-based design should rank as the highest in complexity. My opinion is also backed up in Jonassen's taxonomy which ranks issue-based problems as the most complex and should utilize the strategy-based design (because according to Oliver, it is for complex, ill-defined tasks with decision-making).
On the otherhand, Tegiar's classification of learning activity techniques - assimilative information handling, adaptive, communicative, productive and experiential - is a more accurate and clear-cut categorization that is easier to follow and agree on.
So this is my input for Week 4. Looking forward to being able to apply the learning design in tutorials and seeing how it relates to future topics on E-learning!
No comments:
Post a Comment