'video'
Bennett, S. and Reilly, P. (1998). Using interactive multimedia to improve operator training at Queensland Alumina Limited. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 75-87. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet14/bennett.html.
Lockyer, L. & Bennett, S. (2003) Digital video cases: Investigating the effectiveness of technology-supported continuing professional education for general practitioners. In N. Smythe (Ed.), Proceedings of the Apple University Consortium Conference (pp. 13.1-13.7). (Proceedings published on CD-ROM.)
These are two papers published about the process of developing some multimedia learning resources. They are written by some of my uni lecturers, which makes this a little weird but I’ll press on anyway.
The first revolves around a package called Dual Diagnosis, which is designed to assist GPs with evaluating patients with both mental illness and substance dependencies. It includes video clip case study examples of patients attending a number of sessions with a doctor. It also has pre and post tests and a range of printed information and weblinks. There is also the ability to take notes within the tool.
Overall this is a pretty well put together package (well, at least given my knowledge of medicine) – however one thing I would have found useful was more in depth feedback in the pre and post tests. It gives you a breakdown of the questions that you got right and wrong but doesn’t reiterate what they were and what the correct answers should have been. This might have broken the elegance of the single page presentation but would have been more helpful.
“Case-based methods are considered to support learners in making links between theory and practice – specifically such methods support active, independent learning with authentic situations and interactions. (Bromley, 1986). Learners are required to analyse these ‘real-world’ problems, reflect on their understandings, interact with other learners and thus explore multiple perspectives and reflect upon or suggest a course of action. (Bennett, Harper and Hedberg, 2002). Specifically these strategies are seen to support deep understanding, critical analysis, decision-making and communication skill development”
This package was tested on two groups of GPs – one that had attended a face-to-face orientation session and another that hadn’t. This paper was written before the evaluation was complete but some of the responses to and concerns about the package were interesting – “Participants expressed concern about using it in an office setting – particularly with a patient in the office. They also identified that they already felt pressed for time and were unsure that they would find opportunity to work through the package. Some identified lack of access to a computer or were concerned that they might lack the necessary technology literacy to use the package”
This suggests to me that some people will instinctly react against the use of multimedia technology and that the design of the interface should be as simple as possible (which I think it is in this case) and probably should reflect something that the learner is already familiar and comfortable with.
The second package is a fairly specific training package for alumina producers at an aluminium refinery in Queensland. It is very much about training workers in particular processes to ensure maximum efficiency and safety.
Bennett begins by illustrating the proven usefulness of multimedia in education.
“Interactive multimedia can offer a range of benefits over traditional training approaches by providing improved flexibility, cost and time effectiveness, consistency and availability… Forman (1995) identifies benefits and values in four major areas – organisational benefits, instructional benefits, learning effectiveness and business efficiency.l Multimedia can also provide improved and more consistent testing and administration… Keppell and Richards (1996) also suggest that self paced multimedia materials offer a private environment which enables trainees to review the material as many times as they wish”
The multimedia package was designed as a supplementary resource to the face to face instruction.
“A new training structure was designed which incorporated a multimedia tutorial which could be used before, during and after practical training sessions with an experienced operator”
There was a comprehensive development cycle used:
- Needs assessment
- Costing and scheduling
- Content collection
- Planning grid development
- Editorial
- Client review
- Revision and sign-off
- Image collection
- Digitising
- Authoring
- Audio
- Beta testing
- Client review
- Revision and sign-off
- Delivery
- Trial and evaluation
“These multimedia packages were developed to train operators of heavy mining equipment and were designed to address limited literacy and computer skills through the following strategies:
- the use of simple direct language
- limiting screen information to a single concept
- logical explanations for procedures
- use of graphics to support and explain text
- use of large buttons
- avoidance of icons
- limited navigation options (next, back, help, quit, menu and settings”
“Further development of this model has seen the inclusion of optional, full narration which matches the on-screen text and text/audio help which provides an explanation of the features on each screen. Kenworthy (1993) recommends that information be both visualised and verbalised for poor readers and that supporting audio match on-screen text exactly to allow the identification of unfamiliar words.”
Those are some particularly handy hints – the use of audio in a lot of educational multimedia resources is very underdone and I think it should be used in most places that you have text. I was surprised by the avoidance of icons – maybe this means icons by themselves without accompanying text – I might have to follow that up.
All in all a couple of interesting projects with some good detailed information about the multimedia design and development process.
October 1st, 2007
Implications of the Net Generation on designing interactive multimedia learning resources
Over the last twenty-five years the exponential growth of ICT (information and communications technology) has had a profound effect on our society. It has sparked a shift from an industrially focused culture to what is known as the Information Age.
We now live in a world where information is easily created and shared and where its skilled application is highly valued. This has significant ramifications for education, as the new tools and new ways of thinking necessitate dramatic new approaches to teaching and learning. This directly affects the design of interactive multimedia learning resources.
The so-called Net Generation (Net-Gen) are the first generation to grow up knowing nothing other than this highly connected, information rich world. As “digital natives”, they “think and process information fundamentally differently.” (Prensky 2002). Their use of ICT and attitudes toward ICT and information in general offer us a set of ideas for a new approach to education which embraces the information age. Among these are an emphasis on collaboration, connectivity, flexibility and experiential learning.
The needs and attitudes of the Net-Gen aren’t the only factors that will influence education and multimedia design in the coming years – ongoing research in education, the priorities of industry and society, emerging technology as well as institutional and teacher needs will all play a part.
Examining the key traits attributed to the Net-Gen however allows us to consider practical changes in approach and design that can be made today.
Who are the Net Generation?
While the precise years are disputed, it is generally agreed that the Net-Gen were born in the period between the early 1980s and 2001. They are also referred to as Generation Y, Echo Boomers, the iGeneration and their apparently preferred term, Millennials. (Wikipedia: Generation Y, 2007)
Alan Kay, a member of the 1970’s Xerox PARC team, has described technology as “anything that wasn’t around when you were born” (Frand, 2000). This means that for much of the Net-Gen, personal computers, mobile phones, digital audio, sophisticated computer graphics and even the Internet aren’t considered technology, they are simply a fact of life.
While it is obviously simplistic to ascribe any characteristic to a large group of individuals, there are a number of traits which appear common to many members of the Net-Gen.
Interested in technology: Having grown up with technology, Net-Gen students consider themselves far more Internet savvy than their teachers and report seeing better ways to use technology than they are offered in the classroom.(Oblinger 2003) “Every time I go to school I have to power down”, complains one student according to Prensky. (2001)
Emphasis on collaboration: They gravitate toward group work (Howe & Strauss, 2000) and want to work with people they click with. (Raines 2003) . Massively multiplayer online games popular with the Net-Gen such as World of Warcraft and Starcraft are strongly based on collaboration.
Need Connectivity: In some ways related to their preference for collaboration, the Net-Gen make heavy usage of a plethora of communications tools including SMS, instant messaging, email and particularly online communities such as MySpace to maintain connections with friends and family. This connectivity is 24/7 and the Internet in particular means that it isn’t limited by geography.
Another interesting aspect of connectivity in online communications is that the Net-Gen have “blasé attitudes about the loss of private space” and an “expectation of speaking to an audience even in personal communication” (Wikipedia:Internet Generation, 2007)
Multitasking: Multitasking is considered to be the most practical response to the exponentially increasing sea of information we find ourselves in. (Frand, 2000). As highly connected digital natives more familiar with this environment, the Net-Gen are considered particularly adept at navigating a range of tasks simultaneously, which may include both work and play.
Goal oriented: Net-Gen learners are more focused on skills than knowledge. “In many disciplines, the half-life of information is measured in months and years. From this perspective, what a person can do is more important than what degree they obtained”(Frand, 2000 p.17)
Confident and optimistic: The Net-Gen are seen as highly positive, confident and optimistic. They expect respect (Raines, 2002) and, conscious of their power as consumers, will either speak their mind or vote with their feet if they don’t get what they want.
According to Saulwick Muller Social Research (2006): “Not only has this generation been born into a prolonged period of economic growth, but they have come too late to experience the severe economic restructuring brought about by globalisation and the information revolution.
They have grown up understanding and accepting that the future is all about mobility, adaptability and change. For the most part, they are preparing for it and they embrace it.”(p.5)
Seek instant gratification: The combination of a customer service oriented world and the immediacy of digital technology means that members of the Net-Gen are felt to have “zero tolerance for delays”. (Frand, 2000 p.22).
Marc Prensky (2001) sums most of these traits up nicely when he says that “Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work.” (p.2)
Implications for designing interactive multimedia learning resources.
In addition to the obvious technological changes, the Information Age (and globalisation) has had a profound impact on the way people work and live. The increasing rate at which new information and knowledge is generated means that learning has become a lifelong process.
UNESCO’s 1996 report Learning : The Treasure Within (The Delors report) identified a key pillar of education for the future as “Learning to know – the mastery of learning tools rather than the acquisition of structured knowledge. It includes learning to learn and developing concentration, memory skills and the ability to think”. (RED CIT 2000 P.1)
The Information Age, lifelong learning and shifts in family, work and leisure priorities present educational multimedia designers with a range of new opportunities and challenges.
The need for more educational content and new approaches, in combination with enhanced access to tools to create richer and more sophisticated learning resources means that multimedia designers could be well positioned to make a significant contribution to education in coming years.
The learning needs of the Net-Generation feature heavily here and it is their particular desire for these following qualities to be a part of their education that fuels much of this demand. Many of these qualities have also been identified in educational multimedia research as adding to learning.
Flexibility: Flexibility encompasses notions of enhancing access to learning as well as catering to different learning styles. Kearns (1999) takes the position that we can and should “use modern technologies to widen equitable access to education and training opportunities”.
The Internet has long been seen to be a powerful platform for the distribution of information untrammeled by time or space, two significant impediments to learners in the past. It could be argued that multimedia learning resources have been used in one form or another for decades in distance learning practice to address these issues however the speed with which they are now available makes learning more accessible than ever.
Mobile technology takes this accessibility and flexibility to a higher level still by allowing learners to access sophisticated multimedia learning resources anywhere. Many mobile phones, PDAs and other devices support HTML pages, Flash objects, audio and video – any of which could be learning resources. The use of audio and video as podcasts and vodcasts respectively is now well established and offers another option to educational multimedia developers. RFID tags and QR codes (Simpson, 2006) are further options that might considered with mobile technology.
Multimedia learning objects also offer flexibility in terms of providing a wider choice of learning activities which cater to different learning styles. Developers should consider different ways to achieve the same learning outcomes in the process of designing multimedia resources.
Relevance: As already mentioned, the half life of information has dropped significantly in the Information Age (Oblinger, 2003) and this has the potential to quickly outdated some learning resources.
Developers might consider embedding weblinks to information sources (though this too isn’t foolproof), reviewing created resources to a schedule or making some of their multimedia learning resources customisable, allowing teachers/users to make changes if relevant data changes. (Customisability is an underpinning principle of Flexible Learning Toolbox Learning Objects.)
A more significant application of relevance in multimedia learning resources comes when they take the form of simulations and games with problem based approaches. This offers the Net-Generation (and other users) the experiential, skill developing learning that they prefer and enhances learning by making it authentic and context based.
Dalgarno (2001) feels that these support a Constructivist approach to learning, particularly in that they “allow the learner to explore, manipulate, or construct within a world and consequently to discover real or abstract concepts within the domain”. (p.156)
The development of simulations can be an intensive process however the increasing sophistication of multimedia production software as well as the support of growing user communities means that it is getting easier by the day.
It is equally important however for developers to resist the temptation to make use of all of the bells and whistles available to them in the increasingly sophisticated multimedia production software if it is not directly related to the learning content. Pretty pictures and interesting sounds have been found repeatedly to actually depress the learning benefits of multimedia resources. (Colvin Clark & Mayer, 2007)
Interaction: The interactivity of games and simulations is a factor that appeals to many users including the Net Generation. A well designed game/simulation focuses the learners attention and the sense of fun and user control offers high levels of engagement. (Prensky, 2001).
Interaction also has the potential to offer feedback, another key motivator. Virtually any multimedia learning resource can incorporate “practice tools, which require the learner to carry out specific tasks or answer specific questions and provide feedback on the learner’s performance” (Dalgarno, 2001 p.156).
This addresses another of the key Net Generation traits, their impatience with delay.
One issue for educational multimedia developers to consider is the actual nature of the interaction that learners have with the multimedia resources. Does it have to be about pushing buttons or typing? Could it include speaking, singing, gesturing with the mouse, drawing with a tablet, using a web cam? (Dalgarno, 2001)
Structure: The organisation of knowledge is a key factor in teaching and learning. Multimedia offers “more complex and interesting ways to structure and access knowledge.” (Bates, 2000, p.42).
A multimedia learning resource might be structured in a linear fashion like a book, it might work as a website with a hypertext structure or it might consist of a linked list of smaller, self contained learning object, breaking the knowledge up into digestible chunks. These are but three possible approaches of many. The nature of the information age suggests that we need to consider any number of approaches to sharing information. (Bates, 2000)
The goal oriented nature of the Net Generation as well as their desire for flexibility and multitasking tendencies suggests that multimedia learning resources developed with them in mind should offer multiple paths to knowledge acquisition.
Collaboration: The question of collaboration raises a number of questions as to the very nature of multimedia resources and few answers.
Even with interactivity and feedback, do multimedia resources still primarily using a traditional transmission model for learning?
What options are available for learners to collaboratively work on tasks?
Is there a capacity for communication through a multimedia resource?
Could a blog or a wiki be considered a multimedia resource?
Should multimedia learning resources contribute to scaffolding knowledge (or even higher level skills) which the individual learner adds to collaboratively in a separate space or tool?
Given the teamwork oriented, collaboration favouring nature of the Net Generation, these are some of the most significant issues of all to consider in the development of multimedia learning resources.
Bates (2000) makes the salient point that “Learners still need to discuss and argue, to challenge and question what they have learnt”. (p.41). I would extend that to include work together and generate collective knowledge.
As the standard bearers of the Information Age, educational multimedia developers can learn a lot from the Net Generation. Ongoing research in education continues to enlighten our understanding of how multimedia can be more effective but their instinctive use of contemporary ICT and unquestioning acceptance of it as today’s paradigm are driving the need for change now.
It means that the design of interactive multimedia learning resources needs to be more flexible, relevant, engaging and particularly collaborative – and that’s a good thing for all.
(As a Gen-Xer, I would like to mention however that the founders of Google, MySpace, YouTube, Blogger, Odeo and Wikipedia are all Gen X.)
References.
Kearnes, P. 1999 VET in the learning age – the challenge of lifelong learning for all, Paper presented at Post-compulsory Education and Training: Looking to the future, Canberra 27 August 1999.
Raines, C. (2003). Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook for a new workplace. Mississauga, Ontario : Crisp Publications
RED CIT (2000 August) What is Lifelong Learning? Research Digest Canberra: Research and Evaluation Department CIT
Howe, N. & Strauss W (2000). Millennial Rising: The next great generation. New York, NY : Vintage Books
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. Understanding the new students. Educause Review, July-August, 37-47
Bates, T. (2000). Teaching, Learning and the Impact of Multimedia Technologies. Educause Review, September-October, 38 – 43
Frand, J (2000). The Information Age Mindset Educause Review September/October, 14-24
Prenksy, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Dalgarno, B (2001) Technologies supporting highly interactive learning resources on the web: An Analysis Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12. 153-171
Joshua Schachter. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Schachter
Larry Page. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page
Steve Chen. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chen
Chad Hurley. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Hurley
Jawed Karim. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawed_Karim
Jimmy Wales. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
Evan Williams. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Williams
Generation Y. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
Information Age. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age
Internet Generation. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Generation
Saulwick Muller Social Research (2006 October). Fearless and Flexible – Views of Gen Y. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://www.dsf.org.au/papers/189/SaulwickReport3_0.pdf
Simpson, C. (2006) Make barcodes that can be read by mobile camera and provide web links. Retrieved May 27th, 2007 from http://citfls.blogspot.com/2006/09/make-barcodes-that-can-be-read-by.html
May 28th, 2007
Step 1: Take notice and describe the experience
The feedback I received on my first learning object was very encouraging. The broader understanding that I have already developed of strategies to add meaning to learning (e.g. visual analogies – Anglin et al. (2004)) and to enhance the learners ability to process information (e.g. text conventions – Hartley, J (2004)) have been particularly useful. It’s satisfying to feel that I’m on the right track.
After submitting the Learning Object, I did some further testing on it and found that I should have been more mindful of screen size. I tend to work at a relatively high resolution which means that everything fitted on my screen easily but on monitors at lower resolution this wasn’t the case and some scrolling was necessary. I decided that the pages were good enough as they are but will be more mindful of these issues in future design.
I also found that Microsoft has now released an update for the Windows Media Player plugin for Firefox which resolves some of the display issues that had been a problem previously. I was less worried about this as issues of cross-browser compatibility are important for learners to be aware of but will look for some way to incorporate this information into the object. (Probably by adding a resources page).
In looking at the first learning object (and considering the second), I thought for a while that it would be great to have a learning object that consisted of a video with a set of sliders beneath which can alter various qualities of the video (bitrate, codec and file type) in real time to offer a live model of how changes affect video directly but this seems far too difficult.
I’m still working on producing resources for training sessions on using video at this stage. I’d like something a little more active this time around – most likely something that provides more feedback to learners in terms of formative assessment. This would probably take the form of a quiz or game revolving around multiple choice questions as tasks that the learner needs to answer to move on to the next stage.
We currently offer several simple, wizard based tools for creating simple games at CIT. Most of these are essentially dressed up self marking multiple choice quizzes put into a more interesting context such as Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? I’d like to offer something that goes beyond this.
I’m interested in maximising the interactivity and exploring some principles of games in education theory (Prensky 2006) however time constraints may mean it’s a smaller project than I’d like.
Another area that I’m interested in focussing on is that of foundation I.T literacy skills. Apparently we have a small division of responsibility issue on this at CIT however (this area is regarded more as a task for the H.R department) so I need to tread carefully.
Step 2: Analyse the experience
My decision to leave the first learning object as it is was mainly on practical grounds – the time and effort required to make a change which is mainly aesthetic. My personal feeling is that scrolling should be avoided if possible but that most users are ok with it.
Adding a resources page to the first learning object seems like a useful approach to take in terms of providing support to learners. The majority of learners that I teach have low level technological skills and the complexity of video creation is challenging enough for them without being expected to figure out what else they need to know (and use) and where to find it.
I’m looking at the quiz/game idea as a resource to provide learners with reinforcement of their learning as this meshes well with my interest in the use of games in learning as motivational tools. The more I read about the development of higher level skills – particularly in regard to problem solving and the ability to transfer knowledge from one situation to another – the more a game based approach seems useful.
Step 3: Take action
I’ve learnt to be more thorough in my testing process and to try to empathise more with the likely needs of learners for easy access to resources.
I’ve also learnt that some technical issues can simply be beyond your control – the Firefox/WMP plugin compatibility issue namely – but it’s worth following I.T news as these are often the first sources for resolutions.
I need to focus some more attention specifically on game design principles and see what links I can make to educational strategies.
April 23rd, 2007
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(1).
This article explores (in a slightly tech-evangelical but nonetheless interesting way) possible uses in education of emerging technologies including MUVEs (MultiUser Virtual Environments – ie Second Life), Wireless/Mobile devices and ongoing developments in online content.
It also looks at the way “neomillenials” – also referred to by some as digital natives – interact with current technology and ways that education may be able to (or indeed need t0) adapt to provide learners with more complete and satisfying learning experiences.
Emerging learning styles:
- Fluency in multiple media and in simulation-based virtual settings
- Communal learning involving diverse, tacit, situated experience, with knowledge distributed across a community and a context as well as within an individual
- A balance between experiential learning, guided mentoring and collective reflection
- Expression through nonlinear, associational webs of representations
- Co-design of learning experiences personalised to individual needs and preferences
Main points:
- Internet is reshaping information gathering/learning styles – more seeking, sieving, synthesising than before.
- Digital media encourages multitasking (instant messaging, websurfing, emailing, listening to music while reading)
- Too much multitasking might lead to cognitive overload
- New emphasis on customised, personalised environments – learners wanting to shape their own courses, decide what they learn and need for universities to cater to this
- Millenial students – those born after 1982
- Emerging media types foster deeper psychological immersion – particularly 3D spaces but also “augmented reality” created by the expanding use of mobile devices and networks
- Mobile Wireless devices (MWDs) can be used to access context specific information while out in the real world
- Potential for networked MWDs to create connections between people with common interests
- People have multifaceted identities – real world and online ones
- Enhances access to information across space and time
- Possible to create interactions in virtual space that are impossible in reality – eg dealing with a chemical spill in busy neighbourhood – scenario based learning
- MMOGs growing in popularity (apparently Second Life hasn’t quite hit the stands at the time of writing)
- Use of virtual interactive environments, modelling museums, labs, historical simulations
- Coming phenomena of ubiquitous computing – being networked everywhere
- Encouraging non-linear communication – e.g. authoring a simulation and creating a webpage to express understanding rather than writing a paper)
Suggested implications of these changes:
- need to redesign physical spaces – specialised spaces less necessary (e.g. library reading rooms)
- places and objects will have more information attached to them
- networked collaboration enhances accessibility
- new forms of assessment required – beyond written papers – which incorporate greater peer based assessment
- need for widespread wireless network infrastructure
- move to more personalisable learning experiences
- move towards more emphasis on knowledge sharing between students
- more “real-world”context based case studies in assessment
My thoughts:
Generally there are a lot of interesting ideas here and Dede is well aware that a number of the changes proposed would involve a significant reshaping of current educational practice and systems.
I often get the feeling when reading educational theory – particularly of a constructivist bent – that it is either somewhat divorced from chalkface reality (overly theoretical) or conceived with motivated post-graduate university students in mind, rather than secondary or early tertiary students.
In the VET context, we work with learners with more basic foundation skills in learning (adolescents fresh out of high school or workers reskilling themselves) and some of the principles about student directed learning and customised courses seem quite irrelevant to learners – and highly impractical for teachers.
I question the assumption that until now learners have only taken information from narrow channels such as a textbook or two or their teacher – this fails to give teachers any credit for ingenuity at all. Multimedia in one form or another has been used in classrooms for more than 100 years.
Information processing is definitely an important skill in this age – we have access to more of it than ever before. Neomillenials may well have more effective skills at processing this and this is something to consider in designing their learning – the dangers of cognitive overload should also be taken seriously as well though.
Do neomillenials really take in and comprehend all the information that they process or is it taken more superficially?
Do people (we) have shorter attention spans now and what does this mean to learning?
I appreciate the business imperatives of providing more personalised and customised content as well – this is certainly going to be appealing to learners – however I question the assumption that learners always know what they don’t know and also what they need to know.
Research has indicated that learners don’t always get in right when deciding what they need to know and that more often than not they get it wrong when determining the best way to learn things that they want to know. Sometimes that topics that seem the least interesting to a learner are the most important in terms of actually being able to use a set of skills or knowledge.
When courses and curricula are designed by “experts”, these are people who are able to bring valuable experience to the process and know better the things that learners need to focus on. It might be worth allowing learners to shape the order in which content is presented but the body of the content is probably something that they should be prepared to accept as coming from someone who knows more. If you don’t enter higher education to know more than you currently know, why go there at all?
The matter of administering and assessing such systems (unless we are dealing with chunks of knowledge) also seems to have been brushed aside but is a key consideration in making these changes actually happen. Teachers don’t want to do more work than they are already doing – often times they simply can’t – and will vote with their feet if a system is imposed on them. (Such as one revolving around personalised learning packages)
How can employers make considered assessments of a qualification if it’s significantly different to everyone elses?
Let’s not make learners too important in the process of figuring out what they have actually learnt – just because they feel as though they know enough about something doesn’t necessarily make it so. If a team of medical students successfully completes an operation, are we sure that each student can do it all?
Looking at education another way, if the knowledge of the world (the developed world at least) is at our fingertips, do we need to learn anything more than how to access it and understand it? (Of course, if the access to this info breaks, society could be in trouble)
Human adoption of technology systems that put people in contact with random strangers sharing common interests (in terms of mobile wireless devices) has been hyped for a few years now but really hasn’t taken off. People do make connections online more freely based on common interests – is this because it is a less threatening environment? I think that people are naturally cautious about strangers and prefer the online buffer. This may differ in a learning environment – I’d like to hear some ideas for ways that this might work though.
Notions of access are very powerful and encouraging – current technological developments certainly offer great promise for involving more people in education who have been disadvantaged. We shouldn’t forget those who are technologically disadvantaged as well (The One Laptop Per Child scheme is encouraging here) as this is a key divide.
Simulations that go beyond what is possible or practical in reality are very encouraging – one of the things I regularly discuss with teachers is that if using technology doesn’t add something to a learning experience that wasn’t already there, why use it? The possibility of developing resources and simulations that mean you can do something new – such as a massive chemical spill in a big city – are tremendous.
I suspect that many of Dede’s suggestions for implementations (particularly large scale ones) are designed as ambit claims – things like getting rid of computer labs and reading rooms in libraries work on an assumption that 100% of learners want to go down this path. If we are going to talk about providing personalised learning, what about these people?
This is more about provoking thought and discussion and is fair enough.
I read a comment recently (no idea where) which made the point that computers should simply be seen as another classroom resource and that we don’t talk about taking the students to the pencil lab. (Although isn’t that the Art room?). This is true, although I’d say that if pencils cost $1000 each, it might be a little different.
Personalisable learning – worth considering RSS feeds and related widgets, still not sure what personalised learning environments are or how they work but I guess this comes into the picture.
This article is definitely worth a read, I just wonder if it isn’t a little divorced from chalkface practice – or putting it more nicely, a little idealised.
April 22nd, 2007
McGreal, R. & Elliott, M. (2004). Technologies of Online Learning
(E-Learning) In T. Anderson
& F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning. (pp115-135). Athabasca University.
After my last effort which clocked in at a fairly ridiculous 4000 words, I’ve decided to take a more sane approach and really just try to focus on the heart of these articles.
This article on possible uses of current technology was written in mid-2003 and while many aspects of it are still quite pertinent, some already seem a little quaint. There is a large focus on what might be done, less so on what is being done and it takes a slightly tech-evangelical bent at times – but it’s nice to see enthusiasm.
In short:
- Edutainment is the meshing of education with entertainment
- Audio and video files are large and accessibility issues should be considered
- Streaming’s advantage is that files begin to play while they are still being downloaded
- As chunk 1 of a file is playing, chunk 2 is being downloaded. When chunk 2 plays, chunk 1 is deleted and chunk 3 is downloaded (Funnily enough, I didn’t actually realise that chunks were deleted)
- Uses of audio – lectures, guest speakers, student projects, classroom interaction, audio files, music performances, readings of language pieces,
- Uses of video – lectures, demonstrations of how to do things, adding motivation/interest to content
- Push technology creates channels to put created content on desktops (This has been and gone and surpassed by pull technology such as RSS)
- Educators should be watchful that push technology is used in schools for educational, not commercial purposes in schools
- VOIP – it works and is cheap and good for distance learning and accessibility
- Uses of VOIP – supplement to classroom based e-mail pen pal programmes, good for language, cultural exchange
- Web Whiteboard tools – useful for collaboration, graphical display and brainstorming
- Instant messaging – useful for immediate communication between teachers and students
- Handheld/Wireless/Mobile technology – it’s coming and will be bigger than Ben Hur (It’s here, some uses but we’re still waiting for the oohh-ahhh moment I think)
- Uses of mobile learning – accessibility
- Peer to peer file sharing – good for exchanging files (well duh) and setting up repositories of learning objects
- Knowledge objects – discrete items which might be image, text, video, audio etc
- Learning objects – Knowledge objects with a lesson attached to them.
- Usefulness of learning/knowledge objects – breaking learning into digestible chunks.
Looks like they missed the whole Web 2.0 boat, as well as Learning Management Systems, Personal Learning Environments and a few other things.
Not a bad article for an overview of some things but definitely a reminder of how quickly things are changing.
April 19th, 2007
Neo, K. (2003). Using multimedia in a constructivist learning environment in the Malaysian classroom. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(3), 293-310. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/neo.html
Extract: In recent years, the infusion of multimedia into teaching and learning has altered considerably the instructional strategy in our educational institutions and changed the way teachers teach and students learn.
The traditional teacher-centric method of teaching used for decades in our educational system has been modified and enhanced. Currently, modern education theory is moving from the traditional recall of facts, principles, or correct procedures into the areas of creative thinking, problem solving, analysis and evaluation. These are skills which are very much needed in today’s knowledge based economy.
This shift in focus on learning has presented Malaysian educators with serious challenges as well as opportunities in restructuring their curriculum to meet the rising demands of the knowledge based society, which is currently being initiated by the Malaysian Government.
In this paper, we focus on designing a course which is oriented towards a constructivist based paradigm by using multimedia as an instructional tool, and where students are active learners, involved in constructing their own knowledge in the learning process and determining how to reach their own learning outcomes.
A survey was carried out to ascertain the reactions of students enrolled in an interactive multimedia course in the Multimedia University, Malaysia towards this constructivist based learning mode. The results indicated that these students reacted positively towards this study mode and improved their interpersonal and collaborative learning skills.
My first response to this paper wasn’t a particularly positive one. As you can see from the extract, it is about the experiences of students in a constructivist situation (one where the learning is “built” by the student in a situation where they are presented with a problem as their assessment and make their own decisions about what they need to learn to solve it.)
It is also very much about how the use of multimedia is meant to slot into this constructivist model, with the students using audio, video, animation, interactive flash, images and more to create a final product that brings together everything that they have learnt.
The students then complete a questionnaire providing feedback on their enjoyment of the learning experience and how valuable they felt that using multimedia was in constructing their knowledge.
The problem here is that these are multimedia students at a multimedia school – this is a field that they want to work in and one which the Malaysian Government (and it seems the author of the paper) is very keen to develop in Malaysia.
Using students trained in the use of multimedia to determine the effectiveness of using multimedia as a learning tool seems an entirely questionable place to start in this instance. (Unsurprisingly, the students all felt that using multimedia helped them to learn).
In addition to this, the paper seems heavy on pro-constructivist rhetoric and light on concrete examples of how or why this practice actually supports learning.
Language such as “students obediently listen to the lecture” in describing conventional “chalk and talk” teaching seems slanted – the word “obediently“grates in particular as something regressive, something to be judged.
On the other hand, descriptions of the Constructivist model are all glowing and faultless – “students work individually or in small groups to explore, investigate and solve authentic problems and become actively engaged in seeking knowledge and information, rather than being passive recipients.”
(My personal belief is that a Constructivist approach can be highly effective and that learners will connect more strongly with knowledge that they have found – particularly after they have identified their own need to have it and found ways to relate it to their existing knowledge.)
The fact that learners were taught in a seemingly more conventional manner how to actually create the multimedia projects in the first place is quickly glossed over in a sentence – <blockquote> These students have no a priori knowledge in multimedia authoring and authoring tools and, therefore, were given lectures and tutorials to provide them with basic skills in multimedia application development. </blockquote>
I believe it is a rare occasion that an exclusively constructivist approach would be used in a classroom and while problem based learning is a great approach for autonomous learners and group-based learning, most students still expect a reasonable level of support from their teacher and for their teacher to be more knowledgable about the subject than they are.
Having students create multimedia resources to examine the usefulness of multimedia in a constructivist approach makes a lot of sense but seems to get too “meta” when the students are creating multimedia resources for the sake of creating multimedia resources. Their knowledge of the subject matter of the aforementioned multimedia resources apparently went up, which is certainly encouraging but given that the learning outcome was more focussed on the students developing product management and design skills, this seems somewhat irrelevant.
However
I’m meant to develop a Heuristic based on this article – not that I’m overly sure what a heuristic is meant to do – from the examples I’ve seen, it seems like a concise headline summary of a larger (400 words approx) summary of an idea contained in the article. The finer points of what a heuristic is, what it is for and so on appears to have been covered in the face to face classes of this subject -however as a distance student, I missed out. (The last time I asked a question about concept maps I was advised to google it on wikipedia – which I had already done incidentally – so I’m somewhat reluctant to ask again).
This leads me to the question – if I disagree with the approach to a subject that is covered in a paper, can I still pull a reasonable opinion/position from it which takes the shape of a heuristic.
The article has some interesting things to say about the purpose of the constructivist approach, I think this is the place to begin.
Update - ok, so there is actually a pretty reasonable looking guide to writing heuristics tucked away in the course content.
I might just post quickly about that too.
March 21st, 2007
