Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4568] Statement 9 - Theory for eLearning
From: Bill Williams (bill.williams@mail.telepac.pt)
Date: Sat 15 Mar 2003 - 23:22:16 MET
From: "Bill Williams" <bill.williams@mail.telepac.pt> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4568] Statement 9 - Theory for eLearning Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:22:16 -0000
I also feel the wording of Statement 9 needs amending although unlike
Stephen I suspect that I could live with the underlying premise that
eLearning may not represent a fundamental change in education per se.
Firstly I would prefer to leave the word curriculum out of the statement
because there may be different interpretations of the term (I think it is
used more narrowly here in Europe than in the US for example) and because I
think it can lead us to conducting the debate in the area of syllabus and
bodies of knowledge rather than addressing the fundamental aims of
education.
More importantly, I don't accept that curriculum is king. As Stephen
suggested both curriculum and learning objectives are means to achieving our
aims or learning outcomes but may not always be the only or most appropriate
ones.
Mark, I think we need to be clear about the difference between theory of
education (whether e-mediated or conventional) and strategies for applying
the theory within the framework of the educational system we work in. It is
only by working from a sound, clearly defined theory that we can decide
whether curriculum is king or not, compare different approaches to
elaborating curricula, make recommendations for improving the system at
local or national level and so on.
"The overall aim of education" is really the crux of the whole endeavour
but of course has always been difficult to pin down and define. I wonder if
classic approaches to educational theory such as Bloom's taxonomy can be of
some use in defining terms and developing a theory of eLearning.
I would define learning as a process whereby a change comes about in the
learner in the cognitive, psychomotor or affective domains and define
education as a process of achieving planned learning outcomes.
My suggestion for statement 9 would be more along the lines of:
The essential process of education, enabling the learner to achieve planned
learning outcomes within a given context, does not change when eLearning is
applied. However the communication revolution of which eLearning is a part
has profound implications for both the educational context and the
definition of appropriate educational outcomes.
Examples of context would include primary/secondary/higher education;
education for citizenship; professional/vocational/in-service training;
lifelong learning.
Learning outcomes in a specific educational context can be set out within
Blooms domains in a way that allows us to develop appropriate assessment
processes for eLearning and indeed, like Mark, I think the competency-based
approach to defining outcomes and assessment is useful and appropriate here
(but for reasons explained below may need some adaptation).
Learning in the Affective Domain and eLearning:
Stephen has set out very clearly why we need to be clear in our language in
defining our educational aims and has teased out usefully some of the
problems involved with the original wording and assumptions. However, in
addition to the learning outcomes he mentions (knowledge, skills and
interactional ability) I would suggest we also need to consider affective
learning i.e attitude and mindset.
Examples of unwanted mindsets which may be learnt:
"IT is only for the technology minded/men/young people"
"I'm no good at languages/music"
"Shakespeare is irrelevant and boring"
"I have finally achieved my goal of becoming a highly skilled and qualified
professor/surgeon/lawyer; now I can tell my juniors how things must be done"
Examples of valuable mindsets:
"Accountancy/technology is interesting/challenging/exciting/fun"
"I may not be the best at IT/music but I know what I need at present and
where to go if I have problems"
"I've learnt a lot during my course but the field is changing rapidly;
luckily I've developed fairly good strategies for keeping up to date"
Now affective outcomes such as these are common to all educational systems
but the personal contact between teacher and pupil or learner and tutor in
the best traditional ones has always allowed some informal monitoring and
appropriate intervention in these areas. I wonder to what extent theis is in
danger of being ignored completely with the move to eLearning.
I have seen examples of affective learning being successfully monitored and
nurtured online by skilled, committed moderators working with fairly healthy
learner/moderator ratios so I don't doubt that it is possible within
eLearning. My concern is more that pragmatic realities of funding, economies
of scale and difficulty of assessment of affective aspects will effectively
mean that this aspect will tend to be ignored.
Bill Williams
Setubal Polytechnic
Portugal
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun 16 Mar 2003 - 13:19:53 MET