Introduction
This discussion is aimed at professionals who want to explore new perspectives on designing Web learning instruction and environments. It is intended for participants who recognize that conventional classroom design methodologies may not always work for online learning, especially when an instructor is not available to facilitate more independent learning. What changes do we need to make when we shift the responsibility for learning from the classroom instructor to the online learner? What are our new considerations and what changes do we need to make when we expect learners to become more-self motivated and self-directed online learners?
Like many others, I have many questions. What are others doing to consider the changes and demands for online learning? In fact, I would like to see our industry take a formal approach in considering the impact (good and bad) that technology has had on how we design, integrate and present instruction and environments and develop social relationships. I would like to see a framework based on concrete research that distinguishes key differences that can guide our online design strategies—with successful results. An exaggerated hope perhaps but let’s start talking about what needs to be done!
Not Surprisingly Several Questions Arise
These are just a few of the question running through my head. What are the other questions that need to be asked? Some of the answers to these complex questions rely on how well we understand key learning differences and their influence on successful learning. One missing link is the instructional perspective that embraces a truly learner-centric understanding of how individuals want or intend to learn (more than just the cognitive understanding of how learner’s process and build knowledge). Conventional solutions that focus on primarily cognitive factors may be incomplete or no longer capable of fulfilling the needs of today’s online learner.
Historically, cognitive‑rich (how people think) explanations about learning differences have tended to underplay or overlook the dominant impact of affective (how people feel) and conative (how people realize intentions) factors on thinking, learning, and performance. Previously, primarily cognitive-based solutions were enough because instructors were in the classroom to implement, adapt, and personalize the solutions to their audience and specific objectives. After years of depending on the instructor in the classroom, learners are experiencing a change. Clearly online, the responsibility to learn shifts considerably to the learner.
Recently, these dimensions have gained considerable importance as contemporary multidisciplinary research (including recent advances in neurobiology of learning and memory) has revealed how intentions and emotions can influence, guide, and, at times, override our thinking (cognitive) processes. Since instructors, who previously addressed the conative, affective, and social factors in the classroom are not always available, the primarily cognitive-based solutions and perspectives used previously may be incomplete and need to be refined as more and more learners move to learning on the Web.
Key Issues for Individual Learning Differences
My personal search is to explore individual learning differences, particularly in understanding the impact of emotions and intentions on learning and how we develop, use or manage our values, cognitive abilities and social relationships. As we put learners online and expect learners to take on more responsibility for their learning, we begin to see learners as individuals and identify how each may use or need additional support to improve their online learning achievement and ability over time. In this understanding, we also begin to see patterns (from a “whole-person” perspective) that identify gaps in how people are equipped to engage in learning online.
This discussion should explore design guidelines for at least three key areas for more personalized online learning:
Within each of these areas, how do we consider how individuals learn differently from a whole-person perspective (not cognitive-based learning styles)?
The first area of consideration emerges from the understanding that learning environments strongly influence how we learn and especially online without an instructor. Most research studies suggest that a closely matched learning or personalized environment will have a positive impact on learning. As a result, this discussion may also consider how to build learning environments that adapt to key individual learning differences. Or is it even necessary? Certainly we’ve tried adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring in the past. Is the typical, cognitive-based “one-size-fits” all the most sensible? In the past, have we considered how individuals want and intend to learn and is this consideration of individual differences a waste of resources? From another perspective, should we educate our audiences to demand a more sophisticated understanding of how individuals learn? Or, when we design a course with only a universal type or “one-size-fits-all” learner in mind do we unintentionally set other learners up for frustration and possible failure?
The second area of consideration is how to design and present instruction that recognizes, matches, and supports how individuals want and intend to learn differently. In this area, the primary design goals should provide instruction that helps learners accomplish instructional objectives and, more importantly, also helps them continually improve online learning ability (e.g., more self-motivated and self-directed learning than when they were in instructor-led environments).
The third area of consideration is how to develop social relationships in support of the instructional objectives (instructional objectives and achievement) but also improved online learning ability and individual needs.
We are still very much in the experimental stage for creating Web learning environments. Much still needs to be learned about designing successful environments, both technically and pedagogically. Since the fifties, researchers have challenged the field to find for each individual the instructional solutions that the learner can most easily adapt for the best payoff. Hopefully our readers will examine their own position on (a) considering the influence of key psychological factors (conative, affective, cognitive, and social) that influence learning differently, (b) recognizing critical links between Web instruction, learning environments, learning differences, social relationships, and online learning ability, and (c) developing supportive Web instruction and learning environments (different from classroom solutions) that match values, beliefs, and individual learning differences.
Conclusions
The Web offers the perfect technology and environment for precision learning because learners can be uniquely identified, content can be personalized, and subsequent progress can be monitored, supported, and assessed—cost effectively. Technologically, researchers are making rapid progress realizing the personalized learning dream. The missing link is the instructional perspective that embraces a truly personal, whole-person understanding of how individuals want or intend to learn (more than just processing and building knowledge). Conventional solutions that focus on primarily cognitive factors may be incomplete or no longer capable of fulfilling the needs of the more sophisticated Information Age online learner.
Hopefully, these suggestions will contribute to the development of a more successful learning framework for the Web and a greater understanding about matching solutions with key, fundamental learning differences. When we design a course with only a universal type or “one-size-fits-all” learner in mind are we unintentionally setting other learners up for frustration and possible failure? If we are serious about providing good online instruction for learners, should we move away from traditional classroom solutions and when necessary learn to design multiple ways to conduct instruction in environments that all learners have opportunities to succeed? This discussion is a first step in thinking about recognizing and accommodating individual learning differences. They are also an important step in recognizing the expanded, dominant role and impact of emotions and intentions on learning, especially since online learners must be by nature of the delivery system more self-motivated and self-directed learners.
References
Jones, E. R. and Martinez, M. (2001) Learning Orientations
in University Web-Based Courses. Proceedings of WebNet 2001, Oct 23-27,
Orlando, Florida,
http://normal.tamucc.edu/jones/webnet01.pdf.
Martinez, M. (2001). Key Design Considerations for Personalized
Learning on the Web. Educational Technology & Society,
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2001/martinez.html
Martinez, M. (2001). Using Learning Orientations to Design
Instruction with Learning Objects. In Wiley, D. (ed.), Instructional Use
of Learning Objects. Association for Educational Communications & Technology,
http://reusability.org/read/#3
Martinez, M. and Bunderson, C. V. (2001). Foundations for Personalized
Web Learning Environments. Journal of Asychronous Learning Networks,
4(2),
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/Vol4_issue2/burdenson.htm.
Martinez, M. and Bunderson, C. (2000). Building Interactive
Web Learning Environments to Match and Support Individual Learning Differences. Journal
of Interactive Learning Research, 11(2). Abstract,
http://www.aace.org/pubs/jilr/v11n2.htm#Building
Interactive World Wide
Russell, T. (1997). Technology wars: Winners and losers. Educom Review, 32 (2), 44-46.
Snow, R., & Farr, M. (1987). Cognitive-conative-affective processes in aptitude, learning, and instruction: An introduction. In R. Snow & M. Farr (Eds.) Conative and affective process analysis, 36, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1-10.
