This week's readings have already been very instructive: Anderson (2008) and Ally (2008) both advocate for good instructional design principles as well as instructional strategies that may be above and beyond those used in a traditional classroom format. I find myself in violent agreement with both authors.
As I read through the Moller, Foshay, and Huyett articles in particular, I kept wishing that my team from work were there so I could make some very strong arguments about the current state of affairs of our e-learning classes. The first article in particular, which addressed assessment and evaluation of learning was particularly relevant to my place of employment, because we are a principally knowledge-based organization, where one's intellectual capital is valued and prized to the degree that our corporate culture has become one of "information hoarding". This attitude makes the sharing of information and the practice of knowledge management more or less irrelevant in some organizations.
However, there is hope: we have a huge number of new hires from the past few years, and they were educated and have grown up in a more collaborative environment. Consequently, teaming, working in groups, sharing information with other groups, and thinking beyond the "me" universe is more natural for them.
Our organization's focus on volatile mission concerns makes the use of e-learning vital to our continued success, but it would seem that we have a hard time defining the true meaning of successful training. We subscribe to the Kirkpatrick/Phillips model of evaluation, and although we are a government organization, we have insisted on trying to conduct ROI evaluations in the past with minimal success.
I keep thinking to myself that I definitely have job security as I face these issues as a change agent. It will truly be an adventure!
Dr. Simonson's (2000) article on making decisions about the use of electronic technology in teaching and learning should be mandated reading by every person in my training organization. Otherwise we tend to subscribe to the self-fulfilling prophesy of "let's use "x" because we already own it". This does not mean that "x" is the best option for this topic, nor does it mean that it is the best delivery system...we have it so we should be using it (for better or worse). Sigh.
As I viewed Simonson's (2008) video clips, I found myself again nodding in violent agreement, especially regarding equivalency theory--I have long argued that viewing a videotape of a lesson being taught to a class is not the same as actually being in the class. I have often lost this argument, but the next time I have to engage over this topic, I will have Simonson on my side. That may not give me the winning edge but it will make me feel better in any case!
So....until next week or the next burst of inspiration, happy learning and may we all practice good instructional design!
Anne
Resources
Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The Theory And Practice Of Online Learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Moller, L Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The Evolution Of Distance Education: Implications For Instructional Design On The Potential Of The Web (Part 1: Training And Development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70-75. Use the Academic Search Premier database, and search using the article's Accession Number: 33281719.
Moller, L Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The Evolution Of Distance Education: Implications For Instructional Design On The Potential Of The Web (Part 2: Higher Education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70. Use the Academic Search Premier database, and search using the article's Accession Number: 33991516.
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The Evolution Of Distance Education: Implications For Instructional Design On The Potential Of The Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67.
Simonson, M. (2000). Making Decisions: The Use Of Electronic Technology In Online Classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 29-34.
Simonson, M. (2008). (Video podcast) Distance education: The next generation. Accessed December 4, 2008 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=4683208&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Simonson, M. (2008). (Video podcast) Equivalency theory. Accessed December 4, 2008 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=4683208&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I can certainly relate to wanting some co-workers over my shoulder when I am researching eLearning and course design. In my current position, there is a lot of work to do, and having another eLearning professional would help greatly.
As I read your post, I had a few questions. First, I also see the opportunity for your company with the new hires. Bringing on individuals who are familiar with Web 2.0 applications and are natives the current culture of information sharing will help chip away at the existing culture of “information hoarding.” I wonder, though, how that culture relates to the issues of assessment and evaluation introduced in Moller et al’s articles.
My second question is one of curiosity. You talk about your mission statement strongly relating to e-Learning tools and it makes me wonder what that mission statement is. I am currently working in an organization that needs to add a relationship like that to their mission statement, and I would appreciate seeing your example.
My last question is regarding the evolution of distance education. I can clearly see that you agree with Anderson, Ally, Moller, Foshay, Huyett, and Simonson’s positions on distance education, and ID and ISD strategies. Also, I get a sense of why you feel an evolution is necessary, as related to your company, But why do they feel an evolution is necessary?
Thanks,
Brad
Hi, Brad--coming up for air after a LONG uphill climb here and getting caught up with all the details of the course (including blogging)!
First, by way of explanation, I work for a Defense Dept organization, and I am part of the in-house training group. Our culture as a whole does not relate much at all to assessment and evaluation. I like to suggest that as an organization, we routinely run with scissors.
I am in a new group which is charged with adding new technologies and applications, including games, simulations, and visualizations to existing and future courses. I am in the process of writing a mission statement (it is so typical that our group has an assignment, we have an identity, and have been in existence since late October, and are just now writing a mission statement!). I'll share it with you as soon as it passes my next layer of management's approval!
As far as your third question, we need to evolve just to keep up with the technology. I know there are instructors who use overhead projectors and tranparencies (perhaps more entertaining than PowerPoint?) Also, because we are a rather isolated organization, we tend to not leap into the latest applications because they are not vetted and pose potential security risks, so our instructors and course designers really do not see what is potentially available for our use. It is almost "adapt or die", and I prefer the former option!
Anne
Post a Comment