Review: e-learning models

1. Review: e-learning models Helen BeethamProgrammeConsultant

2. Holistic view of eLaP(year one: designing for learning) Developing e-learning models Descriptive framework => modelling tool Evaluation framework => evaluation tool analyse review collate evaluate refine generate Resources, guidelines and tools Evaluated models Specific models describe Consultation, requirements analysis & resource development apply apply Specific instances of e-learning Case studies/evaluations

3. So what is an‘e-learning model’? • Representation of an e-learning • practice • activity • approach • that can be • shared • compared • generalised to other contexts • within a common framework

4. Advantages of a common (conventional) framework • Sharing ‘proven’ practices across subject areas, institutions and contexts • More efficient communication of best practice messages • translating general approaches into practical activities, and vice versa • Meaningful comparison of different approaches in different situations • Practitioner and researcher influence on standards-based developments • Opportunity to build systems and tools that support specific pedagogical values and approaches • …?

5. Problems might be.. • Pragmatic difficulties: is it even possible? • Different terminologies, may reflect different values? • Conventions evolve, they cannot be imposed • Desirability: what is lost when practice is explicitly modelled or represented? • Ownership: who does the modelling/ representing, and what are their interests? • Buy-in: who else has a stake? Do they have different interests and values?

6. A need to differentiate: • What should be represented/modelled in the e-learning system? • i.e. according to technical standards and specifications • What should be represented/modelled outside the system? • i.e. between people, according to shared conventions • What should not be represented/ modelled at all? • i.e. because not amenable to standard, general or conventional representation

7. A tentative way forward… • Pragmatic approach, focusing on particular users’ needs • Practitioner planning perspective • Needs to be complemented by learner reflecting perspective (may be another strand of eLaP) • Practical (situational) limit on factors to be taken into account • Clearly circumscribed context of relevance (UK post-16 formal education) • Use existing conventional/converging vocabularies • e.g. related to professionalisation, QA, standard curricula • Focus on learning activity (task?) as central unit of description • Fits with conclusions from UKeU, CANDLE, Dialog+ and work at OU (eLTN)

8. Key tasks (from review: e-learning models) • The e-learning and pedagogy programme will seek to define a range of practice models, i.e. distinct but comparable approaches among which practitioners, working in a specific context, can make an informed choice. • The programme will be concerned with theoretical models insofar as these provide general frameworks for discussing, comparing and evaluating practice models (especially in relation to learner experience). • Any framework or terminology used must have a high degree of recognition and usability in the practitioner community • Where possible, practice models will be mapped totechnical standards and specifications to ensure that future systems are compatible with the needs of learners and teachers.

9. Learner(s)needs, motives, prior experience of learning, social and interpersonal skills, learning styles and approaches Prior subject knowledge and skills of learner(s), prior conceptions, motivation to achieve specific outcomes, match of style/ approach to content Prior experience of learner(s) with tools, environments, services; match of learning style and approach to affordances of learning environment Activity ‘interaction of learner with environment, leading to planned outcome’ Outcomesubject/discipline area, target knowledge/ skills Environmentavailable tools, facilities, services, resources, environments etc Knowledge represented in specific media and formats; skills facilitated through specific tools; impact of learning environments on the meaning of knowledge and skills A framework for planning e-learning (H.Beetham, Feb ‘04)

10. Learning design spec • Advantage: describes approaches in terms of sequences of activity, so escapes use of loaded and poorly defined terms such as ‘constructivist’ or ‘learner-centred’. • Advantage: activity sequences can potentially be described in both standardised (technical) and conventional (practitioner) terms • Problem: two, clearly distinct levels of representation – the micro (interaction between learner and system) and the macro (use case or sequence) – real life is fuzzier! • Problem: terms currently used are unfriendly and unfamiliar to most practitioners • Problem: sequencing sets limits on learner autonomy

11. Implications for eL models • Need to differentiate (a) learning activities and (b) learning approaches. • May need to be more than one ‘step’ between these: • Approach – activity structure – activity • Philosophy – approach – strategy – tactic (CSALT) • Activity cluster – activity – micro-activity (Dialog+) • If activities are defined as interactions between a learner and an environment with a planned learning outcome then: • There are an infinitely large number • They may be classified (e.g. by outcome) but not further sub-divided • There may be a limited number of approaches that can be defined within a general representational framework • E.g. in terms of sequences of activity (workflows) • Or structures/clusters of activity (parallel/branching)

12. activity activity activity activity activity theoretical approach structure/flow of activities Levels of description (activity/approach)(H.Beetham, Feb ‘04)

13. Approaches translated into activity structures/flows • Problem-based learning(1) present problem (2) learner elaborates problem (e.g. through analysis, discussion) (3) learner seeks information (4) learner analyses and evaluate information for relevance (5) learner applies information to problem (6) learner presents solution(s) • Conversational model (Laurillard)(1)set task goal (2) describe conception of subject (3) learner describes conception of subject (4) re-describe in light of learner action or description (5) adapt task goal in light of action or description (etc) • Cognitive scaffolding (Piaget)(1) present content (2) learner engages in content-related task (3) test comprehension (4) present next content in scaffolded sequence (5) next content-related task (etc)

14. Feedback so far • Positive reception for review (thanx ) • Activity widely seen as central, including by practitioners (LTSN, CETIS prac focus, FE) • People like the approaches => sequences idea • Issues raised • Defining the context and task too narrowly – dangers of excluding new practices, technologies, contexts • Focusing on planned learning outcomes – ‘slaves to the current fashion’? • Assuming post-16 contexts are more similar than they really are • May be indeterminate number of levels between approach and activity, i.e ‘activities’ may be of very different ‘sizes’ in different contexts • Activities may be explicitly modelled as sequences, or may be implicit, depending on level of learner • Sequences do not support learner autonomy

15. Activities Individually • Think of an e-learning activity • How could you describe/represent this effectively so another practitioner could put it into practice? In your group • How can e-learning activities be represented? • consider a range of different ways • differentiated, comparable, shareable, re-usable Feedback • Is there in principle a single framework for describing/modelling learning activities? • Is activity the correct focus?