roberth

013091 e-LEARNING EXPERIENCES, MODELS AND THEORIES 1

Assessment Task 2.2 – Learning Community Design (Individual)

Introduction

      This assessment task is an individual reflection which addresses the conduct of the Learning Community Design group task recently completed. In this outline I intend to detail the group process and dynamics which prevailed and through personal reflection interlink the course readings with the learning systems used. The final part of the assignment presents my thoughts of how I perceive the use of e-learning as a learning strategy, based on my experiences in this subject.

The experience of the Group Learning Process

      In commencing this assessment task I was prepared to contribute to any group. My reason for this choice was I had a lot of experience to offer in any participative group work. I could steer a group readily to bring focus and would be willing to learn from others who were more technology savvy; this assessment task being designed to bring about the cooperative effort between the group members using their different skill-sets. Due to a number of factors which included the conflict of other UTS subject assessment tasks being due at similar timeframes, peoples’ other routines (which included employment priorities), it collectively resulted in an asynchronous commitment to this subject’s priorities and in particular the commencement of forming the group. In order to create group functionality I ‘captured’ a group collective through the use of e-mail. In targeting the 013092 EMT2 students, it formed an alignment which for no other reason of commonality, worked. The group was three strong. It highlights a key point that a communication path needs to be set up separate and in parallel to the on-line learning activity. In The Coach’s Assistant, the project topic, its structure and work allocation across the group were detailed in one brain-storming session which was a face-to-face meeting. Of particular note was the attention that we paid to the defining the rules of participation, with each of us contributing in detail to the Community Agreement and Group Charter as a first up detail and the basis of how one-another’s work would be edited.

      The small group size had several strengths; the first being that all of us had to contribute across the full spectrum of the work required for this assignment. The second was that we all had to contribute equally which then allowed the other members to critique/change individual inputs to integrate the work as a group project. The communication pathways set-up by the group was interesting. The Coach’s Assistant wiki initially supported the individual contributions, but as the complexity of interaction heightened between the group members so the communication paths evolved ‘parallel’ to the learning pathway with e-mail, the use of pre-arranged telephone calling times which we had agreed upon as particular deadlines fell, all coming into play. The telephone discussion/editing aligned our collective intent. It highlights where technologies such as Skype can be integrated well into the e-learning process to disengage from asynchronous activity into a synchronous one which is needed at critical times in small dynamic groups. Whilst we recognised that the small group could not generate the outputs that the extra personnel in the larger groups were capable of producing, the learning for all of us I feel was more intensive. A significant part of the reasoning for this is that the topic selected, in creating a methodology for the transference of skills and techniques in coaching through an on-line participative action learning program was easily seen as a productive use of the technology in an area that had never before been opened because the Web 2.0 technology had not been previously available. The approach taken by our group was adaptive technology usage at a low level of sophistication to engage coaches in the learning process. It links well with the educational integrity in e-learning designs proposed by Shepherd, Clendinning & Schaverien (2002). The actions being precipitated by the project design were being effectively being mirrored by the group member’s contributions within the social learning theories proposed by Cornford (1999) and Saunders (1999).

      In reflecting on Roblyer’s (2006) writings, they outline Directed and Constructivist instructional methods. His writing methods and pictorial outlines I found very relatable as he writes pragmatically and explains detail clearly without over-embellishment (Roblyer, 2006, pp. 53-55). He achieves this by separating the objective lessons of learning away from the story outline which is the basis of how most science-based technical writing is composed and of particular importance in designing e-learning programs.

My adaptation of e-learning technologies in the future

(through reflecting upon my experiences in e-learning communities)

      My key area of interest is in developing elements of skills-based training that can be integrated with e-learning principles. It has particular relevance to my roles as an educator of engineering within TAFE-NSW and within the Australian Army, as commander of a Combat Engineer Regiment. I have preference for the ‘constructivist’ learning paradigm (Caxton 1990, p. 53 and Roblyer, 2006, pp. 53-55) for engineering and science-based tertiary training and I feel ‘schemas’ indeed become necessary to communicate pathways and that connected with them is both verbal and non-verbal communication to effect learning and change. In using e-learning communities I see that they actually fit well with these preferred learning styles as detailed by Woo & Reeves (2007, p. 16). Through the use of pragmatic writings, I have found that students/trainees do not require unnecessary detail in explanation; the explanatory detail (if needed), they generally pursue through self-interest and to be able to direct them to specific web sites or to direct them to ‘key-word’ searches to identify sites relevant to their need is probably all that is needed for individual learning.

      The strength of the Web 2.0 technologies in learning has been well demonstrated in this collaborative learning project, and because so much of the outputs in the workplace for engineering is team-based, then it is naturally predictable that embedded Web 2.0 team-based learning will become an everyday tool for collaborative based solutions in business. Tertiary education is required to address any shortfalls in previous education cycles for individual learning. Given that there will always be differences between learners either due to slower learning rates, or through newly developed technologies coming into business practice, the Web 2.0 team-based learning is a key organisation learning pathway that business will need to adopt to be able to progress and learn as a collective entity as more; and newly developed; technologies come into business operations.

      For any science-based tertiary educated trainee, (which includes engineering), they need a critical amount of a schema embedded as ‘rote learning’ to be functional in their profession and as such this has been largely overlooked as an educational outcome in a generation where there has simply not been enough science and mathematically trained teachers fulfilling their needs in secondary schooling. This equates to there being a critical shortage of suitably qualified personnel presently and it means that educators have to create the ‘bridges’ to close metaphoric gaps and that the learning has to be a shared collaborative responsibility between trainer and trainee. I see that the use of e-learning technologies as being one part of the collaborative solution for the trainer to engage the trainee and allow the trainees explore and self-direct learning paths within the subject scope. 

Robert Holdom

08 June, 2008

References:

Claxton, G., 1990, Chapter 3 ‘Evolving Models of the Mind’, in Teaching to Learn: A Direction for Education, London: Cassell, pp. 41-63.

The Coach’s Assistant, www.emt1.wikispaces.com 08 June, 2008

Cornford, I.R., 1999, ‘Chapter 4 – Social Learning’, in Adult Educational Psychology, J.A. Athanasou, ed., Social Science Press, Katoomba, pp. 73-96.

Harre, R. 2006, ‘The Developmentalists’, in Key thinkers in Psychology (R. Harre), London: Sage, pp. 25-44.

Roblyer, M.D., 2006, ‘Chapter 3 – Learning theories and integration models’, in Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, Fourth Edition, Columbus Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Saunders, S., 2005, ‘Chapter 3 – Social Psychology of Adult Learning’, in Adult Educational Psychology, J.A. Athanasou, ed., Social Science Press, Katoomba, pp. 25-71.

Shepherd, J., Clendinning, J. & Schaverien, L., (2002), ‘Rethinking E-Learning Designs on Generative Learning Principles’, Winds of change in the sea of learning: proceedings of the 19^th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE): 8-11 December 2002, edited by A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young & T. Clear, vol. 2, pp. 581-591. Auckland, New Zealand: UNITEC Institute of Technology.

Woo, Y. & Reeves, T., (2007), ‘Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation’ Internet and Higher Education vol. 10, pp. 15-25.